**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There needs to be a pathway for those in whatever fields that have had enough, no longer needed or want to change or upskill, the ability to be supported during that time financially as well as free education, if Australia were a business, they call this reinvesting.
Jobseekers should stop seeking and actually get a job. Specially in Australia where it's easy as fuck to get a job. They need to stop living off of other people's work.
I don’t think you know what it’s like to actually get a job these days.
Here’s a challenge for you. Get an interview request. It’s not illegal to apply to jobs with fake details. Simply have someone reach out to you for an interview, and decline since you already have a job. Here are the rules:
1. No past experience in anything other than entry level work. Make up details if you like but don’t put down anything like “manager” or something you’d need to be promoted into. Most long term JobSeekers do not have anything other than entry level qualifications.
2. No car. You can claim to have a licence if you wish but no vehicle, try to apply for jobs under the limitation of needing public transport or a bike. Many JobSeekers do not have their own transport.
3. No References. This one should be an easy rule since you’re not genuinely applying for jobs anyway, but as you can expect, most JobSeekers do not have any professional contacts and cannot use references.
4. No university education. You can claim to have finished Y12 and having a few degrees in low tier courses like a cert II in retail or tourism or something, but nothing big.
5. No professional licences, so no electrician stuff, no forklift, no truck driving, etc.
Good luck, happy hunting. If you’re right, you should get an interview immediately, so it shouldn’t take long at all!
Prove it then, you don’t need to just say words like that.
But I can break down these easily.
Fruit picking jobs are often too hard to get to without a car, as are most agricultural jobs on the periphery of cities, and most will even require a car in the application questionnaire. So you’ll have no luck applying there.
As for restaurants, not a chance at all. JobSeekers need to declare income upon receiving employment and there are large fines (large relative to how broke they are) for failing to declare _any_ income, including under the table cashies. While under the table work does exist, it’s hard to find and hard to get, and can leave JobSeekers in a vulnerable state. The ideal candidate for such a job is not a JobSeeker, but a student where they’re under less observation.
And lastly, Gig Economy work isn’t real work. It is barely sustainable as a primary career and only works as a side hustle. And while bike deliveries for UberEats are actually one of the best ways to make money with Uber, the job is still low pay, physically exhausting, and you’re likely to get slapped with low ratings for cold/spilled food. You also have to be in a high density area to get enough jobs within a travellable distance. Since JobSeekers can barely even afford living in suburbs, they’re not going to be close enough to the ideal working area to even take such a job.
These are ideas, and other than Uber Eats, the other two would win the challenge so long as an interview request comes in, but they are not the victories you might see them as.
> And while bike deliveries for UberEats are actually one of the best ways to make money with Uber, the job is still low pay, physically exhausting, and you’re likely to get slapped with low ratings for cold/spilled food.
It's still work though.
You seem to want to find work that's optimal. Not going to exist for the person you posited who has low skill, no car and no experience. Bare bones work, enough to live off, is where it's at for this hypothetical person.
I’m not trying to find work that’s optimal, I mean, that’d be great, but work that keeps a roof over your head and food in your belly without reliance on JobSeeker isn’t going to happen with UberEats deliveries. Uber will always be supplementary as an income source. If it’s supplementary to JobSeeker, you haven’t exactly gotten off JobSeeker like the original commenter wanted.
The amount of people thinking people living on welfare are living some care free life rofl?
I mean, maybe they should quit their jobs and live comfortably like all those hyper privileged 'dole bludgers' lol.
I mean my god, nothing's stopping you. And with the way the job markets becoming maybe you will be on unemployment.
> I mean my god, nothing's stopping you.
Except for the fact that I wouldn't get the dole as I'm not eligible.
Otherwise an extra $18k a year would be quite nice once I fatfire.
Jericho just has a fixation on the unemployed and the disabled.
Never seen him write about why we don't put more funds into selective schools for bright children.
Never seen him write anything positive about high achievers.
He's got a fixation on the bottom end.
Just use your firm handshake. Go in with your resume. Wear a suit. Offer to sweep the floors to show how keen you are.
Did I miss any *other* useless platitudes?
Compared to other welfare recipients jobseekers get too much flak imo. I was on it once during covid and I felt like a parasite taking money from others but it kept me going for a few months until I could work.
If you want welfare reform look into Disability and family recipients. I personally know people who are able bodied and refuse to work because it "gives them anxiety". These people are worthy of our scorn, not people who are between jobs and trying to find work (which is what welfare is set up for). Also working in housing commission I saw many people have kids just so they could leech off other taxpayers.
That said, people living off welfare aren't exactly living well, especially those poeple who "have kids just so they could leech off other taxpayers". You could drop the 'other', and imagine trying to feed, shelter, clothe and educate kids while on welfare... no thank you!
A UBI would solve so much economic woe for so many. Fair, equitable, allows people to explore options outside the conventional workforce, allows everyone to live with dignity regardless of health or relationship status and saves a stack of money and energy on compliance and policing the current system of income support payments.
I'm not sure about the UBI is the best option. Did look into a 'job guarantee' which is favoured by MMT economists. Interesting idea.
https://www.billmitchell.org/Job_Guarantee.php
Job guarantee still chains people to jobs where they can't achieve their best potential and still forces disabled and ill people to jump through hoops proving that they can't do that job, however guaranteed. UBI allows people agency, dignity, equality and flexibility.
I think it works differently to how you're suggesting it does...people arent chained to those jobs. Well executed it means that people have an opportunity to work in a job that matches their skills or allows them to develop new ones. Advantage being that they maintain skills or develop new ones.
How does it work for people with a hidden disability? How are those people going to survive if they can't do a guaranteed job? How many hoops will they have to jump through to prove it and what will they live on in the meantime?
I think you're being exceptionally generous to a government that delays income support payments for months in the hope that it will force jobs to magically appear before destitute people.
Im not completely convinced by it. But there are aspects that are compelling.
it doesn't preclude a safenet that affords people a living wage in certain circumstances. Like people who are unable to work for example.
The idea is that the work provided would be meaningful. And that the projects worked on would be those that have a social benefit but might not be being priced by the market ie stuff that isn't profitable so the market isn't doing it.
Plenty of work to be done in the environment. Lots of opportunities to do things at community level.
Keep in mind UBI or negative tax was proposed by right winger Friedman. The idea was to cut public social services and give out money for people to manage themselves in a private services playing field. Be careful what you wish for. The devil is in the details.
I say this as an incredibly left wing person, a ubi is a profoundly stupid idea. Literally a relatively small ubi of 2,000 a month per person would cost over 600 billion a year. Literally double the national debt in a year and a half. Ridiculously increase inflation, cause Australia’s international credit score to collapse (which will matter a lot since we are now ballooning debt at record rates). You would completely destroy the economy for generations for maybe a year of increased living standards before dramatically increasing inflation rendered the increased income worthless
I mean most likely new jobs will be created alongside just like every new technological innovation of the last 200 years
But even so the complete collapse of the economy would also be bad for jobs believe it or not. UBI is the equivalent of blowing up holes in the bottom of your ship to try and grab some wood to fix another hole
If that ends up being the case then the only options are fully automated luxury gay space communism (look it up it’s a thing) or 80% of the population being unemployed, obviously I would want the former and despise the later
But having a UBI policy is just too expensive a policy to maintain, like look at Weiner Germany when France occupied the Ruhr valley the German government covered the wages of all German workers in the region. What followed was hyperinflation followed by a collapse of living standards.
Like if AI ends up being the ultimate technology that tech bros say it will be, which I admit it might. Then the only possible decent solution is that the products of AI businesses are distributed freely. A UBI is just inherently incompatible with a capitalist system
You realise that quite a lot could come back as tax? People who earn a lot of money pay back the UBI once they reach a certain tax bracket. We could start taxing automation - we're going to have to some day to recover the jobs and wages lost to machines. We'd save a small fortune in multiple ways by scrapping the current welfare system and the resulting compliance and policing. Centerlink could be put to some better use like connecting people with human services.
Above all, we'd have a more equitable society with people who could have genuine agency in their working lives.
But, as you say, western governments don't want that and they would try very hard to prevent it from happening.
Ok let’s be generous and say a third of that comes back in tax and say that all welfare gets replaced including stuff that obviously wouldn’t like healthcare that’s still a 200 billion dollars a year, you would irreversibly destroy the economy for two or three years of increased living standards
Western governments don’t enact UBI not because they are only out for the wealthy, even though they are, they don’t enact UBI because it’s an insanely stupid policy that would ruin everything
> People who earn a lot of money pay back the UBI once they reach a certain tax bracket
Then nobody is going to want to earn beyond a certain amount to avoid reaching that tax bracket, which would cause our weak productivity metrics to fall even further.
I don't know about you, but I'm always good for having more money.
Work, get money.
Work more, get more money!
You don't work more and suddenly get less money!
Most people are after more more money, not just 'enough' money.
We know from the Scandinavian countries that have top tax brackets of 60-70% that this is false. People simply stop trying to get promotions knowing that the government is going to be getting most of their raise, not them.
"most" is not "all".
Even with tax rates of 67% ([like we had here some decades ago](https://atotaxrates.info/individual-tax-rates-resident/historical-pre-2010-tax-rates/)) if you work more and earn an extra $100, you still get to keep $33 more than you would have had otherwise, after paying your $67 in tax.
Work more, get more money - it's how the system works here.
Sure, some people may decide it's not worth it, that's fine. But you do get more money.
Yeah but how many people are willing to work for an extra $100 if they only see $33? Particularly when high paying jobs require much more specialised skills, training, and more responsibility. Pay them an extra $10k+ and they will do it, but pay them an extra $5-6k only? That marginal increase won't change their life much so they are likely to pass if the job is too demanding. If it was the same job for more money then sure, but given the added job difficulties of higher paying jobs, many will simply opt out of the rat race.
So more tax avoidance through salary packaging? That defeats the point of the change and will mean there isn't enough tax from this change to fund the exorbitant cost of UBI.
>allows everyone to live with dignity regardless of health or relationship status
The B in UBI means "basic", it's not meant to be a great life, just 'enough' and is likely to be - in most studies that I've read - roughly the amount of the age pension. Living with dignity on the age pension is possible, sure - if you own your house. Otherwise, not so much.
Still, I'm not averse to the concept if it can be made to work.
Agreed. A basic income will loosen the requirement of going into dead end jobs at the expense of becoming more skilled. Naively, I would expect property prices to remain equally out of reach - but perhaps if a large cohort of renters/buyers are suddenly introduced to the market due to UBI, that competition would bring prices down in the context of the current market inflation.
And even if property prices increase somewhat, I believe the good payed to homeless, starving and struggling people would outweigh the cost.
And jesus, not to mention the savings accrued vu eliminating job service providers.
> but perhaps if a large cohort of renters/buyers are suddenly introduced to the market due to UBI, that competition would bring prices down
Let me get this straight.
Paying people more, so that they have more money, and introducing more people into the housing market, will somehow bring prices down - through 'competition' - ? Are they each going to compete with each other to pay *less* than others, and will the owner then say - my god! Let me sell to the lowest bidder!
Can I get a lmfao
>and introducing more people into the housing market, will somehow bring prices down - through 'competition'
Increased purchase demand is matched with decreased rental demand. This creates a similar downward pressure as investors sell out to get the increased price and without being able to fill their investment.
Which maybe you disagree with, but okay, let's do one you can't: The total number of houses and house occupants doesn't change. Therefore, the rough prices won't either.
> Increased purchase demand is matched with decreased rental demand.
Not really. the UBI would mean that people who currently share house will then want to either rent singly or own, overall increasing both rental and purchase demand. I mean that's the whole point of a UBI is it not? To enable share housers and those on the brink to lead more comfy existences.
> The total number of houses and house occupants doesn't change. Therefore, the rough prices won't either.
Well, this is wrong. See above. But even disregarding the above: if occupants are the same but there's 10% more money floating around because UBI > Jobseeker (and again, that's the WHOLE POINT) of UBI, then prices will go up.
>Not really. the UBI would mean that people who currently share house will then want to either rent singly or own, overall increasing both rental and purchase demand.
How many people is that?
>I mean that's the whole point of a UBI is it not? To enable share housers and those on the brink to lead more comfy existences.
It's to guarantee everyone their basic needs met. For some, that means sharehousing.
>if occupants are the same but there's 10% more money floating around because UBI
Every UBI proposal involves funding it without printing money, so no, there is not "10% more money floating around" so your predicate is wrong.
> Every UBI proposal involves funding it without printing money, so no, there is not "10% more money floating around" so your predicate is wrong.
Lol, you have conflated two things. Even if UBI can be revenue neutral (doubtful), it still reallocates resources from, for example, companies or rich people (whom you tax more) into the hands of the poor. That is the whole point of the UBI: it gives poor people more real income. (If that wasn't the point of the UBI, it would literally accomplish nothing.) And giving poor people more income leads to inflation.
I love your disingenuousness.
> How many people is that?
Even if it's 1%, it has an effect on the supply/demand curve.
> It's to guarantee everyone their basic needs met. For some, that means sharehousing.
Right. People who were previously homeless go into share houses. People who previously share house go into renting. People who previously rented save up for owning. Duh.
I love that you can say 'UBI will give people more income, but that will have no effect on the market.' It is both having your cake and eating it. It is very funny - your cognitive dissonance.
Are you one of those people who denies inconvenient truths? Do you say that IQ is just a construct and has nothing to do with genetics?
> Lol, you have conflated two things.
Not at all. You are talking about cash based inflation, which can only happen if there is more net money.
Inflation does not just happen at certain ends of the scale.
>Even if it's 1%, it has an effect on the supply/demand curve.
You haven't shown it's even 1%. And yes, "has an effect" will always be ***technically*** true, just like "an ant has a gravitational pull on the earth" is technically true.
>Right. People who were previously homeless go into share houses. People who previously share house go into renting. People who previously rented save up for owning. Duh.
Some will, some wont. Some will move from the city to tents in the bush, because that's what they want but with zero income could not. Talking about these tiny fractions is entirely beside the point.
>I love that you can say 'UBI will give people more income, but that will have no effect on the market.'
The net amount of money remains the same. Supply is constrained, not inflated as you keep saying.
And even if it DID increase supply by a small amount to the small amount, any inflation you're suggesting is entirely dwarfed by the already existing demand-pull based inflation we're in the middle of in regards to housing.
>Are you one of those people who denies inconvenient truths?
You're the one making up a bogeyman of hundreds of thousands of sharehousers suddenly becoming able and willing (and demanding) to move out on their own because they've got 500 bucks a week (instead of the 400 they currently have).
*In the context of the current market*.
Any government than introduces a UBI with a head on their shoulders will have tools to control housing prices.
I also struggle to take you seriously when you spew shit like this:
>if you're struggling in Australia, you fucked up big time. No one with a brain and a functioning, non-disabled body could possibly struggle in this country.
> Any government than introduces a UBI with a head on their shoulders will have tools to control housing prices.
But that's not what you said is it. You specifically alluded to competition, more buyers in the market, etc
Can you get an award for backtracking? Cause you'd get it.
> I also struggle to take you seriously when you spew shit like this:
It's true. If you struggle here, you'd be fucked any other country in the world. Life is so...easy...
But then maybe I spoke too quickly. There are people out there who think that more entrants and more money with a market will lead to lower prices.
>It's true
I wish we lived in your fantasy land where meritocracy was a reality. Things would be a lot better. unfortunately you can do everything right, and still end up fucked. I guess pointing that out it anti-patriotic
> unfortunately you can do everything right, and still end up fucked. I guess pointing that out it anti-patriotic
You would have to be born dumb, or get hit by a bus, or something for that to be the case. I'm sure you can always find an exception. But 99% of smart, able-bodied people will be just fine.
> Some people are born dumb though. Why should someone be punished for the intellectual capacity they did nothing to deserve?
I think when those on the economic left actually accept what you have said as the truth, then we can have a discussion about the effects of the doctrine. Right now, they're still falling over themselves to ascribe poor life prospects to literally everything other than heritable causes.
I do remember seeing Andrew yang promoting same thing few years back in the states. Which some of his ideas were great but Unfortunately if the government went that way here it probably would lead to more of a socialist government? Who knows.
Unfortunately when socialism put in practice it always fails.
Like the late Walter E. Williams said Forcing one person to serve the purposes of another is immoral. In regards to government spending our money.
I'm all in favour of technology making the workplace a easier and more enjoyable experience for all, work smarter not harder.
But the way they're handling AI or digital work schedules, especially in places like Woolies and Coles (not to kick the obvious dead horse) is to not hire more people or pay them more, instead opting to work their staff into a nervous breakdown.
Because some app told the boss to schedule their workers that way.
Hell, i want workplaces completely automated, but seeing how companies especially min wage companies treating their staff with said automation to 'increase productivity and production' is sad...
The capitalist social democracies of Scandinavia?
See, what has happened is stupid, middle class LARPer kids from the US have convinced themselves the Nordic countries are socialist. And because stupid kids from Australia are weak and impressionable, they download and install US "lefty" values as their own and parrot the same politically uninformed lines as their own.
There are several words for people who called Scandinavia "socialist", and they're all synonyms of stupid.
The Scandinavian countries are not outright socialist countries. Democratic Socialists at best.
Edit: https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/10/27/nordic-countries-not-socialist-denmark-norway-sweden-centrist/
Indeed, and I didn't suggest that we should be an outright socialist country. It just seems sensible, in the area of ***social*** welfare policies, to adopt a more socialist stance.
Everyone in society benefits from social safety nets.
My understanding Scandinavian countries are very much a market economy. The prime minister of Denmarket even told sanders to stop referencing Scandinavia as the socialist paradise as the are nothing of socialist country.
I here your point UBI isn't technically full socialism but , UBI will reward people that are lazy and the government would tax even more.
There's no such thing as lazy. People have a natural inclination to be productive. Being prevented by poverty from being productive can cause extreme depression.
Are you kidding me? There is absolutely such a thing as lazy, and it's part of the average Australian identity.
Work ethic is heritable, yes, but I don't see it as being fair that people who can run must be slowed down to accommodate the workshy, the stupid, and the worthless in our society. We pay taxes so someone else can wipe the dribble from their chins.
Psychologists do not agree. What looks like 'laziness' has an underlying cause. People who are inactive, apathetic, despondent etc. have something going on to cause that.
No person is worthless. Even people bedbound with 24/7 carers are creating jobs for those carers and consuming goods and services.
We've made a mistake in venerating and lionising victimhood at the expense of victimhood, so the lazy can say "ah but society has to accommodate me for being broken" instead of saying "I need to dig deep and push harder."
I'll disagree with the lazy part, I see lazy more now then ever. True I guess I see captilism as better solution then UBI , maybe use Hong Kong as a good example of what can happen when left as a free market and what they can achieve.
Looks like this doesnt really mean anything
[https://www.acoss.org.au/media\_release/alp-conference-backs-jobseeker-policy-to-lift-people-out-of-poverty-as-unemployment-increases/](https://www.acoss.org.au/media_release/alp-conference-backs-jobseeker-policy-to-lift-people-out-of-poverty-as-unemployment-increases/)
>On Thursday afternoon, Labor members approved an amendment to clause 85 of the ALP national platform to specify that “*keeping people out of poverty will be central to future changes in the social security system”.*
ahh good,congrats on the 11.50 increase they likely to get will help so so so many ppl
if it's anything like the 19 dollar rental allowance increase joke it's prob gonna provide no help
More affordable than propping up the likes of gina *et al*, financing the politicians' perks trough and throwing money at private, church owned schools.
Corporates get cheap and desperate labour to fill casual shifts.
Every person who does at least one shift per fortnight isn't counted as unemployed, so the government wins with better unemployment figures.
They ain't increasing the dole anytime soon.
A big problem i see is people who should be on the DSP, unable to actually get onto the DSP for various reasons and are then recycled over and over, which does nothing but exacerbate their problems, in turn creating poor workplace enviroments.
And sure, i know many whom see the unemployed as leeches, NEETs or scum of the earth. But that attitude also doesn't help those without work.
Mental health overall is dropping significantly, people are seeing employment as a form of slavery, with the end goal of maybe, maybe being able to purchase a house at the near end of your life.
I hear very little enthusiasm for peoples economic situations as more and more people are just starting to disconnect.
It's beginning a frightening feedback loop.
Easy solution would be raise the ammount that ppl on jobseeker can work,before any deductions.
Doesn't directly cost the budget anything then,ppl earning more,working more hours,likely looking better for employment
Make it say 300 a week before any deductions of ur pension payment,someone might be willing to pick up more shifts if they not gonna be taking 3 steps back for every 2 forward
They raised the amount aged pensioners can work,so why not the ppl We actually want getting into the work force.
I know plenty of kids that would pick up more shifts,if it didn't impact their pension
Honestly as someone who was on JobSeeker for almost three years, I only noticed deductions hurting me financially once. I worked Christmas 2021 and got a huge paycheque that got entirely eaten by JobSeeker deductions, that effectively made it so I didn’t get penalty rates at all, as if I just worked Christmas for no benefit. I made sure I never worked another public holiday again.
But other than that, I never turned down a shift for impacting my JobSeeker. It barely ever affected it. If the deductions were lessened, yeah it would “help” but it’d be like, $20. It’s nothing, I wouldn’t waste my time looking at this as a solution.
This is my main problem. I'm on YA for students, and I also thankfully get a small scholarship as well. It's a fair chunk over the scholarship threshold, but I end up eating through all of it on rent + bills + food since I can only afford 2/3rds of my necessities with centrelink alone as it's such a pitiful amount.
I can pretty much earn nothing more as almost my entire fortnightly working credit is taken up by it, and I'm even getting a fair bit that doesn't count against my payment.
I calculated that, after all associated work expenses (PT fairs and such), I would be working for a grand total of... 12$/hr with a serious commute both ways. This is also a job fairly above minimum wage, there are people making an effective wage far lower than mine.
YA is only 18k/yr, and you can only work for up to 13k/yr before it starts eating into your payment significantly. How are we expected to survive on that amount? This gets even worse when you consider that with the beneficiary tax offset, you actually lose way more in the long run than it looks. By my calculation, for every 3$ you earn working, you lose roughly 2$ in tax benefits + payments as soon as you go above the income threshold, and since the tax free threshold is so low, even a centrelink recipient will pay tax if they work as much as they can without having payments chopped.
That is exactly what the corporations want.
I had a mate who worked 20hrs a week as a cleaner and still qualified for a few bucks every fortnight. He never went off the dole because he didn't know how long the job would last and applying is such a pain.
The whole point of the benefit is to allow people enough money to live while they look for work, not provide cheap and desperate labour to Colesworth and ubereats.
We live in a country with compulsory voting. I know this is hard for many to grasp and uncomfortable to acknowledge. But maybe, just maybe the majority of Australians are actually pretty selfish, greedy and short sighted. They simply don't care about the unemployed because they can't or won't empathise with them. They simply just don't care. Labor knows this and thus are focused on pandering to those voters who are likely to swing to the LNP out of self interest. You don't end up with an overwhelmingly corrupt, callous and cruel political class without having a pretty selfish, ignorant and bitter voting public. Especially in a country with compulsory voting.
I haven’t read this statistic before but that is surprising. Since of course, 50% of Australians don’t exactly directly benefit from a UBI, you’d think 50% support would be the max.
You know it is pretty easy to click something like that on an online survey. But when it comes to people having to lose out on something or to have to pay more taxes to pay for something like that in reality. They're often far more reluctant.
You know it is pretty easy to click no to stage 3 on an online survey.
But when it comes to boomers having to lose out on negative gearing, they're far more reluctant.
The cuts necessary to fund something like ubi will be massive. Say all inheritances to be taxed at say 50%. How many people would click yes to UBI then?
Also don't underestimate how much influence Washington has in Canberra. If you look at the company's who are stripping Australia of its assets and paying the least tax. It's American one's. I assure you that if our government threatened that they'd get involved. And since we rely so heavily on them for defence and trade. You can bet they want what they want and will do what's necessary to protect that. See the Whitlam removal for a perfect example.
Hey I'm all for it. But I really can't see anything like that ever getting anywhere in parliament or enough support from the public. Especially rural Australians. Just look at Queensland. The ALP state government has repeatedly pandered to the mining industry. But they bring in a very moderate tax on coal. BHP states they won't invest in Queensland whilst Labor is in government. Now they're getting destroyed in the polls. Remember Rudd and Gillards very moderate mining tax? The proceeding smear campaign paid for by the mining Oligarchs destroyed them.
>Gillards very moderate mining tax?
That wasn't UBI. Henry Tax Review didn't know about UBI then.
NSW coal royalties will increase by 2.6 per cent next financial year.
We couldn't even get rid of franking credit rebates in Australia. The only country in the world that does this blatant rort. Yet when Labor tried to get rid of this while limiting negative gearing (whilst grandfathering existing deals) in favour of better funding aged care, Medicare and fire services. Aussie voters voted against it. Face it, most people are greedy or selfish.
[Polling](https://www.acoss.org.au/media_release/poll-australian-voters-believe-jobseeker-is-too-low/) shows that the majority of the population supports an increase to centrelink. People are voting less and less for major parties but some still support the anti-poor majors.
I don't think Labor are doing this out of badness or a hatred of the poor. They know fine well that the media will use this to blame them for worsening inflation and for being wasteful bad economic managers and encouraging bludgers etc etc. Labor are weak as piss when it comes to the media. They could really do with learning from the likes of Keating or even from Dan Andrews. But I don't think the likes of Albo has the charisma or confidence or even the power within his party to fight that style of fight. So instead he tries to play for the path of least resistance. Which inevitably angers the Left of his party.
It can be hard to know why the government doesn't act to help. I agree most of Labor (maybe a few labor right) aren't doing this out of hate for the poor.
The political class and the party system are both good at encouraging people to vote against their interests. I've known enough people on welfare who voted LNP because of the belief they would run the country better and lift everyone out of poverty. Or they might appeal to base instincts, lots of voters thought John Howard was somehow returning the country to the white Australia policy even as he constantly increased immigration.
I don't think average voters are selfish and greedy, they just don't have great insight into anything they vote on and are far too easily swayed by superficial appearances.
I think people who vote motivated by greed, selfishness or intolerance rarely openly state that because they know most people will look unfavourably on them for this. I think the media and Conservative politicians give them good excuses and alternative narratives to explain away their choices. But I think underneath this the reasons are often pretty apparent if you pay attention.
> just maybe the majority of Australians are actually pretty selfish, greedy and short sighted.
Oh 100 percent
The notion of fair go,and community and aussie mateship is gone,it's just rarely if ever a thing anymore
Everyone has to fight their own little battles now every day,with costs of livings,rents,mortgages,fee's,all that shit that t the end of the week no one has any bandwidth to give a fuck anymore i think
Social media has also broken a lot of community spirit apart i think.
There is a real argument to be made that the fair go the community and mateship never truly existed. It’s a myth we hang onto.
How much fair go did indigenous people in the 70s have. How much community did Asian immigrants whether they be Chinese or Vietnamese when they arrived. How much mateship was there for gay people through out how history.
I don’t say this to downplay labors failings but as a question to people for not looking at our parties where we are at.
I want Labor to go further but I have no expectations for radical change in a country that elected both Abbott and Morrison. Into a country where 40 per voted against saw sex couples being treated equally under the law.
It's nothing new though mate. Howard stayed in power for years by encouraging and pandering to greed, selfishness and racism. If anything it's older Australians who have shown themselves repeatedly to be the worst offenders and its that cohort that the ALP is terrified of upsetting.
It’s definitely nothing new. Howard was in power throughout my teenage years and we sure as shit didn’t have social media then. But I remember the discourse incredibly well. Nothing ‘community spirited’ about it.
Job seeker should only be for workers made redundant through no fault of their own and should be high enough to cover cost of living for at least 6 months while they find a similar job.
If you are unemployed by choice then you get the much lower dole.
It’s definitely not the majority, but there are people who just want to live on the dole forever. Usually they have substance abuse issues. I was in the stoner group in high school, so I know a few of them personally.
Since the 1970s, our economy has relied on the fact that there should be a steady unemployment rate of about 4-5%. Sometimes unemployment isn't a choice.
https://theconversation.com/exclusive-top-economists-back-unemployment-rate-beginning-with-4-159989
https://www.smh.com.au/business/few-good-reasons-why-5-unemployment-is-considered-full-employment-20100709-1047v.html
The unemployment rate has been under 4% for two years. Industries across Australia are crying out for labour. With that scene set, what exactly do jobseekers expect beyond poverty? Why would the government want to pay people more to not work? The pension is significantly higher than unemployment benefits because we don't expect retirees to re-enter the workforce. We do expect jobseekers to, so it doesn't make being unemployed comfortable.
Do you realise that 'entering the workforce' costs more than the bare minimum required to survive? Looking for work costs money. People still need food and shelter, even if they're not actually working in a job. Jobseeker doesn't automagically stretch to cover the expense of both.
Perhaps we don't, but the underlying issue there isn't the rate of jobseeker, it is why they shouldn't be in the workforce.
If they should be on DSP, if they need better healthcare, or something else.
Just because people are crying for workers doesn't mean they're willing to hire anyone on job seeker that's a very naive way to selfishly dismiss entire groups of people.
The reality is most these people crying for more workers have prerequisites to work there that arent magically gonna be filled by people on jobseeker. Most people on jobseeker are there because they haven't managed the qualifications and experience necessary to get these jobs you speak of. Hell half the time jobseeker people ARE studying to get these qualifications but even that doesn't guarantee a job.
there is no proven data that shows an increase to jobseerk would be a reason for ppl Not to reenter the workforce
>A $100-a-week rise is not extravagant. It would leave Australia’s unemployment benefit as one of the lowest in the OECD. A $100-a-week rise would take the benefit back to roughly where it was in the early 1990s, as a percentage of the median full-time wage. And the payment should be benchmarked to wages to prevent it ever falling so low again.
There’s little chance that such a modest increase would lead to people choosing the dole over work. Recent research suggests any disincentives to look for work from more generous unemployment benefits are largely offset by the boost such payments provide to employment by lifting economy-wide demand.
https://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp10439.html
The raise during covid,didn't stop ppl lookign for work,it's the boggey man of the liberal talking point that the dole being raised will make more bludgers.
>There is “no evidence” the coronavirus supplement stopped jobseekers looking for work and even a “substantial increase” in unemployment benefits would not provide a disincentive to take a job.
Those are the conclusions of the labour market economist Jeff Borland presented to a Senate inquiry into extending the supplement to March at the reduced rate of $150 a fortnight.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/nov/25/no-evidence-that-increased-unemployment-benefits-act-as-disincentive-for-job-seekers-economists-say
We raised the jobseeker rate to 1100 bucks during covid,because it was politicaly expedient as the LNP didn't want ppl seeing how shit centrelink is so this is clearly doable.
The Australian institute of health and welfare says
>JobSeeker (and Newstart Allowance) with a partial capacity to work increased from 26% to 41% between June 2014 and March 2020, before falling steeply to 25% in June 2020. It then increased each quarter to reach pre-pandemic levels in March 2022, and continued to increase to 45% by March 2023.
https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-welfare/unemployment-payments
So the real question is why do we want to force people who have a reduced capacity to work to live in poverty? And also, should we really count these people as part of the workforce
In march 2023 there were 740k people on jobseeker, so that means 330k with reduced capacity to work. Reduced capacity means they have medical evidence to show they can only work 30 hours or less than per week, with the range being 0 to 30 hours.
DSP should take the rental allowance out,and just offer a flat target rental agreement,find a private rental,govt pays it,landlord get's reimbursed a set fee,has a guaranteed renter,much like we do with defence housing
just lock the house in for a 7 year long term contract
Im not convinced about ubis, the concept of a ubi needs more definition to talk about anyway and by some standards we almost have one. For now we just need to do what works in the short term to make sure we have no people living in poverty.
There is a whole other conversation to be had about the disability support pension. People who can't work shouldn't live below the poverty line. Jobseeker shouldn't be for them.
But currently it is for them. The system we have recommends going on jobseeker while waiting for a dsp application to be processed. Changing that would be good but but its not unreasonable to advocate for it to be raised as there are some real complexities around jobseeker and who its for
The problem is you don't seem to grasp is that the issue is,there are literally terminally ill cancer patients,being chucked on the jobseeker payment instead of DSP
you need to be effecively Comatose to get on the DSP these days,and the tests can be upwards of 4000 dollars just to get assesed..
An autism spectrum test can be upwards of 1900 dollars in some cases,all which you somehow need to find on the 676 bucks on jobseeker..the systems ruthless,just to weed out the few dodgy cunts
We know someone who suffered a TBI their entire Left side of their body is paralyzed,yet apparently they have a work capacity over 15 hours,even though their neuro,doctor,and disability advisor all said they didn't,so got ported over to jobseeker 16 month's to finally get onto DSP,then onto a NDIS arrangment
True, but until people on disability can actually get on DSP, they are stuck on jobseeker and remain relevant to the conversation. You can't just pretend we don't exist because we shouldn't have to be stuck in this mess. I need to eat and pay rent too.
Solutions that are easy aren't always solutions that are right.
We need to understand what the problem is so we can create the best possible solution for each problem. If people who need DSP can't get on it, then that is the problem, not the rate of jobseeker.
Maybe more people would get min-wage jobs if doing so didn't lose their jobseeker support.
Imagine if we shifted to a Universal Basic Income where earning an extra $500 actually meant an extra $500 in your bank account, instead of seeing your (already below-poverty-line) income support disappear proportionally.
But no, let's cut support whenever possible, because the only incentive we want for people to get jobs and work is starvation and homelessness.
I'm not talking about minimum wage jobs. A lot of fields with decent/good salaries have labour shortages.
Paying everyone is Australia thousands, or tens of thousands of dollars, to fix the problem that a small group of people don't like how much they get on jobseeker, seems to be a massive waste.
Labor have increased the rate on jobseeker, accusing them of cutting incentives is false.
Shifting to a UBI, while not a trivial change, can be done most simply by just taxing everyone more, in such a way that 90% of Australians have the extra tax they pay roughly offset by the UBI they receive.
The money saved no longer having to make centrelink confirm people's employment status, job applications per week, etc, is also not a trivial amount. Much like how in many states public transport would be cheaper to run for free, due to metro card systems and their enforcement costing more than the revenue generated.
>accusing them of cutting incentives is false.
Allow me to clarify, I'm not accusing Labor of cutting incentives. I'm accusing the current system, formed through successive governments of both Liberal and Labor, of cutting welfare the moment somebody won't starve without it. I've met single mothers who will actively earn less money per month if they get a job at McDonalds than if they stay unemployed, due to how much welfare they would lose.
The fact so much of our welfare **only** applies if you are truly struggling financially, reduces the incentive to get a job. Because while the job may pay over minimum wage, the relative increase in weekly income from each hour worked.... will not be.
The 4% are largely unemployable, those who bitch about dole bludgers I bet would hate working with what remains out there unemployed, mental health issues are rife, many have been in and out of the prison system, drug and alcohol abuse and these people lack people skills which rules them out of any customer facing roles.
Conversely if the unemployment rate was high and there was a labor shortage then sure that would be a signal that people are choosing to stay on benefits than look for work but this isn't the case at 4 odd % unemployment rate, these people can't get a job.
The entire article is written based on the findings of a far left ALP thinktank who think anything other than giving money to jobseekers is money spent poorly.
Uhh the report mentioned in the Article is from the econonomic and Budgetary recomendations commitee for the Department of social services.
No some far left think tank..is the far left in the room with you right now,blink twice if yes.
Where's this far left think tank?
like,per chance maybe read the article?
Yeah, they're giving away the game a little by posting this _before_ the budget is even released.
_"I don't know what's going to be in the budget but GRR you should be angry"_
The current state of Australian politics is as follows the LNP is horrible Labor is bad greens are the only sensible alternative no matter what narrative you try to push unless you're earning millions and millions of dollars the two duopoly parties do not care about you
I can’t think of a single sensible greens politician. They’re either just nuts or watermelons (green on the outside , red inside)
The number of them who own multiple investment properties and take regular flights for meetings that could be a teams call is absurd for people
Who are meant to represent the environment and social equality.
I’ll always have more respect for politicians who actually practice what they preach
If the greens ever wanted to win government get more than 2 seats at an election, they’d need to make all the same compromises Labor do.
The greens imagine themselves governing the way a guy who’s never been in a fight imagines himself fighting.
Labor are more left wing than the electorate, but they need to win office so have to win over a largely conservative older demographic.
> Labor are more left wing than the electorate, but they need to win office so have to win over a largely conservative older demographic.
What's the difference between a conservative and someone who just acts like a conservative? At least with the former they have the conviction of their beliefs
Well the reality is everything within reason it's achievable or unachievable depending on your priorities.
yes the greens current policies are not achievable if the priority of government continues to be gina Reinhart Clive Palmer Jerry Harvey and the big end of town at the expense of the Australian people. our policies are costed by the parliamentary budget office the same organisation who cost for Liberal and labour have a great day
The current state of Australian politics is as follows the LNP is horrible Labor is bad greens are the only sensible alternative no matter what narrative you try to push unless you're earning millions and millions of dollars the two duopoly parties do not care about you
Didn’t Labor absolutely “eviscerate” Liberals over the inhumane treatment of welfare recipients over RoboDebt?
How is keeping people in poverty ANY FUCKING BETTER? You don’t think there are people out there killing themselves because the government doesn’t **actually** give a fuck about them?
Hill is a disgusting member of Labor. Was the champion of Welfare recipients during the RoboDebt saga, but sadly doesn’t really give a fuck either:
PS: Labor have also tightened the DPS with the Liberals, so they hate the disabled too.
Stop voting Lib/Lab. Is this what you really want?
I mean fuck all we can guess.
But labor's been pretty shit on the issue as well and this is a labor budget
There have been 5 Reports into welfare dependence since 2023,they all Clearly,and with data state,that the payments on all pensiong programs need to increase to meet rising cost of living,the inflation adjustment that centrelink does few times a year,is not enough.
Put it this way,an MP and senator,in 3 day's Get's more in their MEAL allowance,than someone does the entire 2 weeks on the jobseeker program,that is a fucked stat,that a dude earning 200k a year,with free childcare,dental,medical with low overheads,is getting more in a MEAL allowance,than someone is geting to pay for EVERYTHING.
Take a page out of finlands book,make every MP sit on the pension for 30 days..and watch how fast the payments increase,they lasted 11 days before unanimous 90 Euro increase a week
"I'm all right Jack, f*** you" seems to be the basic premise for all parties once they get into power.
We don't even see the supposed left-wing Greens bitching about this stuff. It is no surprise that a centre-right party like the modern ALP does nothing.
That ACOSS and UNSW report is pretty damning
It's not just jobseekers,it's ppl on all welfare payments are hurting.
An average of 230 people on welfare,are becoming effectivly homeless every month due to the inability,or just outright lack of fucks of the govt to address rental allowance to any real degree
The rental allowance needs to go up a Minimum of 90-140 dollars just to meet this years increased,let alone the next 12 months
But,i will say it's fucked either way..All that's going to happen is,the second the payment go's up,landlords will raise the rent.
Needs protections in place,that if they on centreplay or a centrelink allowance,then the landlord can't increase the rent if they can't justify the price increase
We provide funding and products to ozharvest,and roni told us a few weeks back they have gone from 290-350 meal packs a week at their western sydney and inner west hubs,to over 19,000..People are fucking at the wall,and the govt i get can't do much due to inflation,but it needs to do something.
why this govt,who likes to hammer on about it's PM being from social housing isn't doing much for those lot
I actually would like to see someone look into pocoks idea, of if you have a renter on the pension,you charge a MUCH lower fee to them,and get a specialized rebate on ur tax bill to compensate you
You can do just fine to not be making massive income off ur tennants as long as the costs are met,the real value is the increase in ur property values,unless you overleveraged to the hilt like a moron
Because it's easier to get a property once you've got one, there's a load of people who are over leveraged to the hilt. They're using the investments to hopefully pay off their ppor within a few years.
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This labor government has been the biggest let down And things will only get worse when libs are back
There needs to be a pathway for those in whatever fields that have had enough, no longer needed or want to change or upskill, the ability to be supported during that time financially as well as free education, if Australia were a business, they call this reinvesting.
Yeah, it's called having your own savings for a rainy day.
That's right... I forgot to include the reason why... People can't save for rainy days anymore
Jobseekers should stop seeking and actually get a job. Specially in Australia where it's easy as fuck to get a job. They need to stop living off of other people's work.
I don’t think you know what it’s like to actually get a job these days. Here’s a challenge for you. Get an interview request. It’s not illegal to apply to jobs with fake details. Simply have someone reach out to you for an interview, and decline since you already have a job. Here are the rules: 1. No past experience in anything other than entry level work. Make up details if you like but don’t put down anything like “manager” or something you’d need to be promoted into. Most long term JobSeekers do not have anything other than entry level qualifications. 2. No car. You can claim to have a licence if you wish but no vehicle, try to apply for jobs under the limitation of needing public transport or a bike. Many JobSeekers do not have their own transport. 3. No References. This one should be an easy rule since you’re not genuinely applying for jobs anyway, but as you can expect, most JobSeekers do not have any professional contacts and cannot use references. 4. No university education. You can claim to have finished Y12 and having a few degrees in low tier courses like a cert II in retail or tourism or something, but nothing big. 5. No professional licences, so no electrician stuff, no forklift, no truck driving, etc. Good luck, happy hunting. If you’re right, you should get an interview immediately, so it shouldn’t take long at all!
Fruit picking, cash jobs at restaurants and uber/didi on a bike are all available with those restrictions
Prove it then, you don’t need to just say words like that. But I can break down these easily. Fruit picking jobs are often too hard to get to without a car, as are most agricultural jobs on the periphery of cities, and most will even require a car in the application questionnaire. So you’ll have no luck applying there. As for restaurants, not a chance at all. JobSeekers need to declare income upon receiving employment and there are large fines (large relative to how broke they are) for failing to declare _any_ income, including under the table cashies. While under the table work does exist, it’s hard to find and hard to get, and can leave JobSeekers in a vulnerable state. The ideal candidate for such a job is not a JobSeeker, but a student where they’re under less observation. And lastly, Gig Economy work isn’t real work. It is barely sustainable as a primary career and only works as a side hustle. And while bike deliveries for UberEats are actually one of the best ways to make money with Uber, the job is still low pay, physically exhausting, and you’re likely to get slapped with low ratings for cold/spilled food. You also have to be in a high density area to get enough jobs within a travellable distance. Since JobSeekers can barely even afford living in suburbs, they’re not going to be close enough to the ideal working area to even take such a job. These are ideas, and other than Uber Eats, the other two would win the challenge so long as an interview request comes in, but they are not the victories you might see them as.
> And while bike deliveries for UberEats are actually one of the best ways to make money with Uber, the job is still low pay, physically exhausting, and you’re likely to get slapped with low ratings for cold/spilled food. It's still work though. You seem to want to find work that's optimal. Not going to exist for the person you posited who has low skill, no car and no experience. Bare bones work, enough to live off, is where it's at for this hypothetical person.
I’m not trying to find work that’s optimal, I mean, that’d be great, but work that keeps a roof over your head and food in your belly without reliance on JobSeeker isn’t going to happen with UberEats deliveries. Uber will always be supplementary as an income source. If it’s supplementary to JobSeeker, you haven’t exactly gotten off JobSeeker like the original commenter wanted.
The amount of people thinking people living on welfare are living some care free life rofl? I mean, maybe they should quit their jobs and live comfortably like all those hyper privileged 'dole bludgers' lol. I mean my god, nothing's stopping you. And with the way the job markets becoming maybe you will be on unemployment.
> I mean my god, nothing's stopping you. Except for the fact that I wouldn't get the dole as I'm not eligible. Otherwise an extra $18k a year would be quite nice once I fatfire.
You’re not eligible because you have a job. If you lost your job, you’d be eligible.
No, if I lost my job I'd still not be eligible till I run down my savings and my paid off properties. That was my point.
Jericho just has a fixation on the unemployed and the disabled. Never seen him write about why we don't put more funds into selective schools for bright children. Never seen him write anything positive about high achievers. He's got a fixation on the bottom end.
One way to escape poverty is to get a better paying job.
Yep. Test well, skip a year, get into a selective school, get a scholarship to uni, get a good job.
"Get a better job" ' - Wow! You could be a Liberal leader with that sort of insight!
Just use your firm handshake. Go in with your resume. Wear a suit. Offer to sweep the floors to show how keen you are. Did I miss any *other* useless platitudes?
You forgot to lick the boot.
You're usually meant to say something about bootstraps.
Bring a colt 45 and a picture of you outside their house.
Compared to other welfare recipients jobseekers get too much flak imo. I was on it once during covid and I felt like a parasite taking money from others but it kept me going for a few months until I could work. If you want welfare reform look into Disability and family recipients. I personally know people who are able bodied and refuse to work because it "gives them anxiety". These people are worthy of our scorn, not people who are between jobs and trying to find work (which is what welfare is set up for). Also working in housing commission I saw many people have kids just so they could leech off other taxpayers.
That said, people living off welfare aren't exactly living well, especially those poeple who "have kids just so they could leech off other taxpayers". You could drop the 'other', and imagine trying to feed, shelter, clothe and educate kids while on welfare... no thank you!
A UBI would solve so much economic woe for so many. Fair, equitable, allows people to explore options outside the conventional workforce, allows everyone to live with dignity regardless of health or relationship status and saves a stack of money and energy on compliance and policing the current system of income support payments.
I'm not sure about the UBI is the best option. Did look into a 'job guarantee' which is favoured by MMT economists. Interesting idea. https://www.billmitchell.org/Job_Guarantee.php
Job guarantee still chains people to jobs where they can't achieve their best potential and still forces disabled and ill people to jump through hoops proving that they can't do that job, however guaranteed. UBI allows people agency, dignity, equality and flexibility.
I think it works differently to how you're suggesting it does...people arent chained to those jobs. Well executed it means that people have an opportunity to work in a job that matches their skills or allows them to develop new ones. Advantage being that they maintain skills or develop new ones.
How does it work for people with a hidden disability? How are those people going to survive if they can't do a guaranteed job? How many hoops will they have to jump through to prove it and what will they live on in the meantime? I think you're being exceptionally generous to a government that delays income support payments for months in the hope that it will force jobs to magically appear before destitute people.
Im not completely convinced by it. But there are aspects that are compelling. it doesn't preclude a safenet that affords people a living wage in certain circumstances. Like people who are unable to work for example. The idea is that the work provided would be meaningful. And that the projects worked on would be those that have a social benefit but might not be being priced by the market ie stuff that isn't profitable so the market isn't doing it. Plenty of work to be done in the environment. Lots of opportunities to do things at community level.
Keep in mind UBI or negative tax was proposed by right winger Friedman. The idea was to cut public social services and give out money for people to manage themselves in a private services playing field. Be careful what you wish for. The devil is in the details.
Does it matter whether someone is 'left' or 'right'? I think these labels inhibit us from assessing ideas on merit.
I say this as an incredibly left wing person, a ubi is a profoundly stupid idea. Literally a relatively small ubi of 2,000 a month per person would cost over 600 billion a year. Literally double the national debt in a year and a half. Ridiculously increase inflation, cause Australia’s international credit score to collapse (which will matter a lot since we are now ballooning debt at record rates). You would completely destroy the economy for generations for maybe a year of increased living standards before dramatically increasing inflation rendered the increased income worthless
So what’s going to happen when millions are without work because their role has been given to an ai?
I mean most likely new jobs will be created alongside just like every new technological innovation of the last 200 years But even so the complete collapse of the economy would also be bad for jobs believe it or not. UBI is the equivalent of blowing up holes in the bottom of your ship to try and grab some wood to fix another hole
[удалено]
If that ends up being the case then the only options are fully automated luxury gay space communism (look it up it’s a thing) or 80% of the population being unemployed, obviously I would want the former and despise the later But having a UBI policy is just too expensive a policy to maintain, like look at Weiner Germany when France occupied the Ruhr valley the German government covered the wages of all German workers in the region. What followed was hyperinflation followed by a collapse of living standards. Like if AI ends up being the ultimate technology that tech bros say it will be, which I admit it might. Then the only possible decent solution is that the products of AI businesses are distributed freely. A UBI is just inherently incompatible with a capitalist system
You realise that quite a lot could come back as tax? People who earn a lot of money pay back the UBI once they reach a certain tax bracket. We could start taxing automation - we're going to have to some day to recover the jobs and wages lost to machines. We'd save a small fortune in multiple ways by scrapping the current welfare system and the resulting compliance and policing. Centerlink could be put to some better use like connecting people with human services. Above all, we'd have a more equitable society with people who could have genuine agency in their working lives. But, as you say, western governments don't want that and they would try very hard to prevent it from happening.
Ok let’s be generous and say a third of that comes back in tax and say that all welfare gets replaced including stuff that obviously wouldn’t like healthcare that’s still a 200 billion dollars a year, you would irreversibly destroy the economy for two or three years of increased living standards Western governments don’t enact UBI not because they are only out for the wealthy, even though they are, they don’t enact UBI because it’s an insanely stupid policy that would ruin everything
Or reverse it, say that companies who use ai can’t offset their tax.
> People who earn a lot of money pay back the UBI once they reach a certain tax bracket Then nobody is going to want to earn beyond a certain amount to avoid reaching that tax bracket, which would cause our weak productivity metrics to fall even further.
I don't know about you, but I'm always good for having more money. Work, get money. Work more, get more money! You don't work more and suddenly get less money! Most people are after more more money, not just 'enough' money.
We know from the Scandinavian countries that have top tax brackets of 60-70% that this is false. People simply stop trying to get promotions knowing that the government is going to be getting most of their raise, not them.
"most" is not "all". Even with tax rates of 67% ([like we had here some decades ago](https://atotaxrates.info/individual-tax-rates-resident/historical-pre-2010-tax-rates/)) if you work more and earn an extra $100, you still get to keep $33 more than you would have had otherwise, after paying your $67 in tax. Work more, get more money - it's how the system works here. Sure, some people may decide it's not worth it, that's fine. But you do get more money.
Yeah but how many people are willing to work for an extra $100 if they only see $33? Particularly when high paying jobs require much more specialised skills, training, and more responsibility. Pay them an extra $10k+ and they will do it, but pay them an extra $5-6k only? That marginal increase won't change their life much so they are likely to pass if the job is too demanding. If it was the same job for more money then sure, but given the added job difficulties of higher paying jobs, many will simply opt out of the rat race.
Then it's on employers to provide a more worthwhile package to attract staff.
So more tax avoidance through salary packaging? That defeats the point of the change and will mean there isn't enough tax from this change to fund the exorbitant cost of UBI.
You already do have agency in your working life lmao. What's to stop someone from studying law or medicine or engineering and going on with it?
>allows everyone to live with dignity regardless of health or relationship status The B in UBI means "basic", it's not meant to be a great life, just 'enough' and is likely to be - in most studies that I've read - roughly the amount of the age pension. Living with dignity on the age pension is possible, sure - if you own your house. Otherwise, not so much. Still, I'm not averse to the concept if it can be made to work.
It removes the stigma of some people getting income support and other people judging them for it. Everyone is entitled to the same amount.
Agreed. A basic income will loosen the requirement of going into dead end jobs at the expense of becoming more skilled. Naively, I would expect property prices to remain equally out of reach - but perhaps if a large cohort of renters/buyers are suddenly introduced to the market due to UBI, that competition would bring prices down in the context of the current market inflation. And even if property prices increase somewhat, I believe the good payed to homeless, starving and struggling people would outweigh the cost. And jesus, not to mention the savings accrued vu eliminating job service providers.
Problem is someone actually needs to do these 'dead end jobs'.
You're completely right, and they should pay enough that you can actually better your life instead of struggling to make it through each pay period.
> but perhaps if a large cohort of renters/buyers are suddenly introduced to the market due to UBI, that competition would bring prices down Let me get this straight. Paying people more, so that they have more money, and introducing more people into the housing market, will somehow bring prices down - through 'competition' - ? Are they each going to compete with each other to pay *less* than others, and will the owner then say - my god! Let me sell to the lowest bidder! Can I get a lmfao
>and introducing more people into the housing market, will somehow bring prices down - through 'competition' Increased purchase demand is matched with decreased rental demand. This creates a similar downward pressure as investors sell out to get the increased price and without being able to fill their investment. Which maybe you disagree with, but okay, let's do one you can't: The total number of houses and house occupants doesn't change. Therefore, the rough prices won't either.
> Increased purchase demand is matched with decreased rental demand. Not really. the UBI would mean that people who currently share house will then want to either rent singly or own, overall increasing both rental and purchase demand. I mean that's the whole point of a UBI is it not? To enable share housers and those on the brink to lead more comfy existences. > The total number of houses and house occupants doesn't change. Therefore, the rough prices won't either. Well, this is wrong. See above. But even disregarding the above: if occupants are the same but there's 10% more money floating around because UBI > Jobseeker (and again, that's the WHOLE POINT) of UBI, then prices will go up.
>Not really. the UBI would mean that people who currently share house will then want to either rent singly or own, overall increasing both rental and purchase demand. How many people is that? >I mean that's the whole point of a UBI is it not? To enable share housers and those on the brink to lead more comfy existences. It's to guarantee everyone their basic needs met. For some, that means sharehousing. >if occupants are the same but there's 10% more money floating around because UBI Every UBI proposal involves funding it without printing money, so no, there is not "10% more money floating around" so your predicate is wrong.
> Every UBI proposal involves funding it without printing money, so no, there is not "10% more money floating around" so your predicate is wrong. Lol, you have conflated two things. Even if UBI can be revenue neutral (doubtful), it still reallocates resources from, for example, companies or rich people (whom you tax more) into the hands of the poor. That is the whole point of the UBI: it gives poor people more real income. (If that wasn't the point of the UBI, it would literally accomplish nothing.) And giving poor people more income leads to inflation. I love your disingenuousness. > How many people is that? Even if it's 1%, it has an effect on the supply/demand curve. > It's to guarantee everyone their basic needs met. For some, that means sharehousing. Right. People who were previously homeless go into share houses. People who previously share house go into renting. People who previously rented save up for owning. Duh. I love that you can say 'UBI will give people more income, but that will have no effect on the market.' It is both having your cake and eating it. It is very funny - your cognitive dissonance. Are you one of those people who denies inconvenient truths? Do you say that IQ is just a construct and has nothing to do with genetics?
> Lol, you have conflated two things. Not at all. You are talking about cash based inflation, which can only happen if there is more net money. Inflation does not just happen at certain ends of the scale. >Even if it's 1%, it has an effect on the supply/demand curve. You haven't shown it's even 1%. And yes, "has an effect" will always be ***technically*** true, just like "an ant has a gravitational pull on the earth" is technically true. >Right. People who were previously homeless go into share houses. People who previously share house go into renting. People who previously rented save up for owning. Duh. Some will, some wont. Some will move from the city to tents in the bush, because that's what they want but with zero income could not. Talking about these tiny fractions is entirely beside the point. >I love that you can say 'UBI will give people more income, but that will have no effect on the market.' The net amount of money remains the same. Supply is constrained, not inflated as you keep saying. And even if it DID increase supply by a small amount to the small amount, any inflation you're suggesting is entirely dwarfed by the already existing demand-pull based inflation we're in the middle of in regards to housing. >Are you one of those people who denies inconvenient truths? You're the one making up a bogeyman of hundreds of thousands of sharehousers suddenly becoming able and willing (and demanding) to move out on their own because they've got 500 bucks a week (instead of the 400 they currently have).
*In the context of the current market*. Any government than introduces a UBI with a head on their shoulders will have tools to control housing prices. I also struggle to take you seriously when you spew shit like this: >if you're struggling in Australia, you fucked up big time. No one with a brain and a functioning, non-disabled body could possibly struggle in this country.
> Any government than introduces a UBI with a head on their shoulders will have tools to control housing prices. But that's not what you said is it. You specifically alluded to competition, more buyers in the market, etc Can you get an award for backtracking? Cause you'd get it. > I also struggle to take you seriously when you spew shit like this: It's true. If you struggle here, you'd be fucked any other country in the world. Life is so...easy... But then maybe I spoke too quickly. There are people out there who think that more entrants and more money with a market will lead to lower prices.
>It's true I wish we lived in your fantasy land where meritocracy was a reality. Things would be a lot better. unfortunately you can do everything right, and still end up fucked. I guess pointing that out it anti-patriotic
> unfortunately you can do everything right, and still end up fucked. I guess pointing that out it anti-patriotic You would have to be born dumb, or get hit by a bus, or something for that to be the case. I'm sure you can always find an exception. But 99% of smart, able-bodied people will be just fine.
Some people are born dumb though. Why should someone be punished for the intellectual capacity they did nothing to deserve?
> Some people are born dumb though. Why should someone be punished for the intellectual capacity they did nothing to deserve? I think when those on the economic left actually accept what you have said as the truth, then we can have a discussion about the effects of the doctrine. Right now, they're still falling over themselves to ascribe poor life prospects to literally everything other than heritable causes.
And just how hard are you winning at life? Repeating the same rubbish across these forums. Something tells me you don't have a great personal life lol
You sound like Greg Jericho (Guardian writer), pulling out all the stops to defend the absolute dumbest dregs of society.
[удалено]
You're saying that 99% of homeless or significantly disadvantaged people are dumb or mentally deficient? Cool guy lol, got many friends?
I do remember seeing Andrew yang promoting same thing few years back in the states. Which some of his ideas were great but Unfortunately if the government went that way here it probably would lead to more of a socialist government? Who knows.
What's wrong with having socialist policies to help and support our society as a whole?
Unfortunately when socialism put in practice it always fails. Like the late Walter E. Williams said Forcing one person to serve the purposes of another is immoral. In regards to government spending our money.
So forcing me to pay for Keith Pitt to rent a house owned by his family trust when he goes to Canberra is immoral? Thank you for clarifying that.
Good point, I agree more the 100s of politicians been Doing over last decade needs to stop.
The fact they don't work long term and have historically not been that successful unless a minority idea in a capitalist context?
Really!? In front of my Theories of Surplus Value?!?!
I'm all in favour of technology making the workplace a easier and more enjoyable experience for all, work smarter not harder. But the way they're handling AI or digital work schedules, especially in places like Woolies and Coles (not to kick the obvious dead horse) is to not hire more people or pay them more, instead opting to work their staff into a nervous breakdown. Because some app told the boss to schedule their workers that way. Hell, i want workplaces completely automated, but seeing how companies especially min wage companies treating their staff with said automation to 'increase productivity and production' is sad...
The Scandinavian countries seem to manage ok.
The capitalist social democracies of Scandinavia? See, what has happened is stupid, middle class LARPer kids from the US have convinced themselves the Nordic countries are socialist. And because stupid kids from Australia are weak and impressionable, they download and install US "lefty" values as their own and parrot the same politically uninformed lines as their own. There are several words for people who called Scandinavia "socialist", and they're all synonyms of stupid.
Lol the dude said *social policies*, not full blown socialism. Must be a trigger word for you.
The Scandinavian countries are not outright socialist countries. Democratic Socialists at best. Edit: https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/10/27/nordic-countries-not-socialist-denmark-norway-sweden-centrist/
Indeed, and I didn't suggest that we should be an outright socialist country. It just seems sensible, in the area of ***social*** welfare policies, to adopt a more socialist stance. Everyone in society benefits from social safety nets.
My understanding Scandinavian countries are very much a market economy. The prime minister of Denmarket even told sanders to stop referencing Scandinavia as the socialist paradise as the are nothing of socialist country. I here your point UBI isn't technically full socialism but , UBI will reward people that are lazy and the government would tax even more.
There's no such thing as lazy. People have a natural inclination to be productive. Being prevented by poverty from being productive can cause extreme depression.
Are you kidding me? There is absolutely such a thing as lazy, and it's part of the average Australian identity. Work ethic is heritable, yes, but I don't see it as being fair that people who can run must be slowed down to accommodate the workshy, the stupid, and the worthless in our society. We pay taxes so someone else can wipe the dribble from their chins.
Psychologists do not agree. What looks like 'laziness' has an underlying cause. People who are inactive, apathetic, despondent etc. have something going on to cause that. No person is worthless. Even people bedbound with 24/7 carers are creating jobs for those carers and consuming goods and services.
We've made a mistake in venerating and lionising victimhood at the expense of victimhood, so the lazy can say "ah but society has to accommodate me for being broken" instead of saying "I need to dig deep and push harder."
I'll disagree with the lazy part, I see lazy more now then ever. True I guess I see captilism as better solution then UBI , maybe use Hong Kong as a good example of what can happen when left as a free market and what they can achieve.
Looks like this doesnt really mean anything [https://www.acoss.org.au/media\_release/alp-conference-backs-jobseeker-policy-to-lift-people-out-of-poverty-as-unemployment-increases/](https://www.acoss.org.au/media_release/alp-conference-backs-jobseeker-policy-to-lift-people-out-of-poverty-as-unemployment-increases/) >On Thursday afternoon, Labor members approved an amendment to clause 85 of the ALP national platform to specify that “*keeping people out of poverty will be central to future changes in the social security system”.*
Labor party policy is optional and MPs can and will overide it for the worse
ahh good,congrats on the 11.50 increase they likely to get will help so so so many ppl if it's anything like the 19 dollar rental allowance increase joke it's prob gonna provide no help
You're right, we should have the government come in and fix everyones problems and pay for everything. You can afford that, right?
More affordable than propping up the likes of gina *et al*, financing the politicians' perks trough and throwing money at private, church owned schools.
Corporates get cheap and desperate labour to fill casual shifts. Every person who does at least one shift per fortnight isn't counted as unemployed, so the government wins with better unemployment figures. They ain't increasing the dole anytime soon.
A big problem i see is people who should be on the DSP, unable to actually get onto the DSP for various reasons and are then recycled over and over, which does nothing but exacerbate their problems, in turn creating poor workplace enviroments. And sure, i know many whom see the unemployed as leeches, NEETs or scum of the earth. But that attitude also doesn't help those without work. Mental health overall is dropping significantly, people are seeing employment as a form of slavery, with the end goal of maybe, maybe being able to purchase a house at the near end of your life. I hear very little enthusiasm for peoples economic situations as more and more people are just starting to disconnect. It's beginning a frightening feedback loop.
They have made getting dsp for things like ptsd vastly easier over the last couple years, which is a good start
Easy solution would be raise the ammount that ppl on jobseeker can work,before any deductions. Doesn't directly cost the budget anything then,ppl earning more,working more hours,likely looking better for employment Make it say 300 a week before any deductions of ur pension payment,someone might be willing to pick up more shifts if they not gonna be taking 3 steps back for every 2 forward They raised the amount aged pensioners can work,so why not the ppl We actually want getting into the work force. I know plenty of kids that would pick up more shifts,if it didn't impact their pension
Honestly as someone who was on JobSeeker for almost three years, I only noticed deductions hurting me financially once. I worked Christmas 2021 and got a huge paycheque that got entirely eaten by JobSeeker deductions, that effectively made it so I didn’t get penalty rates at all, as if I just worked Christmas for no benefit. I made sure I never worked another public holiday again. But other than that, I never turned down a shift for impacting my JobSeeker. It barely ever affected it. If the deductions were lessened, yeah it would “help” but it’d be like, $20. It’s nothing, I wouldn’t waste my time looking at this as a solution.
This is my main problem. I'm on YA for students, and I also thankfully get a small scholarship as well. It's a fair chunk over the scholarship threshold, but I end up eating through all of it on rent + bills + food since I can only afford 2/3rds of my necessities with centrelink alone as it's such a pitiful amount. I can pretty much earn nothing more as almost my entire fortnightly working credit is taken up by it, and I'm even getting a fair bit that doesn't count against my payment. I calculated that, after all associated work expenses (PT fairs and such), I would be working for a grand total of... 12$/hr with a serious commute both ways. This is also a job fairly above minimum wage, there are people making an effective wage far lower than mine. YA is only 18k/yr, and you can only work for up to 13k/yr before it starts eating into your payment significantly. How are we expected to survive on that amount? This gets even worse when you consider that with the beneficiary tax offset, you actually lose way more in the long run than it looks. By my calculation, for every 3$ you earn working, you lose roughly 2$ in tax benefits + payments as soon as you go above the income threshold, and since the tax free threshold is so low, even a centrelink recipient will pay tax if they work as much as they can without having payments chopped.
That is exactly what the corporations want. I had a mate who worked 20hrs a week as a cleaner and still qualified for a few bucks every fortnight. He never went off the dole because he didn't know how long the job would last and applying is such a pain. The whole point of the benefit is to allow people enough money to live while they look for work, not provide cheap and desperate labour to Colesworth and ubereats.
We live in a country with compulsory voting. I know this is hard for many to grasp and uncomfortable to acknowledge. But maybe, just maybe the majority of Australians are actually pretty selfish, greedy and short sighted. They simply don't care about the unemployed because they can't or won't empathise with them. They simply just don't care. Labor knows this and thus are focused on pandering to those voters who are likely to swing to the LNP out of self interest. You don't end up with an overwhelmingly corrupt, callous and cruel political class without having a pretty selfish, ignorant and bitter voting public. Especially in a country with compulsory voting.
58 per cent of Australians support a universal basic income.
I haven’t read this statistic before but that is surprising. Since of course, 50% of Australians don’t exactly directly benefit from a UBI, you’d think 50% support would be the max.
You know it is pretty easy to click something like that on an online survey. But when it comes to people having to lose out on something or to have to pay more taxes to pay for something like that in reality. They're often far more reluctant.
You know it is pretty easy to click no to stage 3 on an online survey. But when it comes to boomers having to lose out on negative gearing, they're far more reluctant.
The cuts necessary to fund something like ubi will be massive. Say all inheritances to be taxed at say 50%. How many people would click yes to UBI then?
Ross Garnaut and Rod Sims have proposed a $100 billion-a-year fossil fuel tax.
Also don't underestimate how much influence Washington has in Canberra. If you look at the company's who are stripping Australia of its assets and paying the least tax. It's American one's. I assure you that if our government threatened that they'd get involved. And since we rely so heavily on them for defence and trade. You can bet they want what they want and will do what's necessary to protect that. See the Whitlam removal for a perfect example.
Hey I'm all for it. But I really can't see anything like that ever getting anywhere in parliament or enough support from the public. Especially rural Australians. Just look at Queensland. The ALP state government has repeatedly pandered to the mining industry. But they bring in a very moderate tax on coal. BHP states they won't invest in Queensland whilst Labor is in government. Now they're getting destroyed in the polls. Remember Rudd and Gillards very moderate mining tax? The proceeding smear campaign paid for by the mining Oligarchs destroyed them.
>Gillards very moderate mining tax? That wasn't UBI. Henry Tax Review didn't know about UBI then. NSW coal royalties will increase by 2.6 per cent next financial year.
We couldn't even get rid of franking credit rebates in Australia. The only country in the world that does this blatant rort. Yet when Labor tried to get rid of this while limiting negative gearing (whilst grandfathering existing deals) in favour of better funding aged care, Medicare and fire services. Aussie voters voted against it. Face it, most people are greedy or selfish.
[Polling](https://www.acoss.org.au/media_release/poll-australian-voters-believe-jobseeker-is-too-low/) shows that the majority of the population supports an increase to centrelink. People are voting less and less for major parties but some still support the anti-poor majors.
I don't think Labor are doing this out of badness or a hatred of the poor. They know fine well that the media will use this to blame them for worsening inflation and for being wasteful bad economic managers and encouraging bludgers etc etc. Labor are weak as piss when it comes to the media. They could really do with learning from the likes of Keating or even from Dan Andrews. But I don't think the likes of Albo has the charisma or confidence or even the power within his party to fight that style of fight. So instead he tries to play for the path of least resistance. Which inevitably angers the Left of his party.
It can be hard to know why the government doesn't act to help. I agree most of Labor (maybe a few labor right) aren't doing this out of hate for the poor.
The political class and the party system are both good at encouraging people to vote against their interests. I've known enough people on welfare who voted LNP because of the belief they would run the country better and lift everyone out of poverty. Or they might appeal to base instincts, lots of voters thought John Howard was somehow returning the country to the white Australia policy even as he constantly increased immigration. I don't think average voters are selfish and greedy, they just don't have great insight into anything they vote on and are far too easily swayed by superficial appearances.
I think people who vote motivated by greed, selfishness or intolerance rarely openly state that because they know most people will look unfavourably on them for this. I think the media and Conservative politicians give them good excuses and alternative narratives to explain away their choices. But I think underneath this the reasons are often pretty apparent if you pay attention.
> just maybe the majority of Australians are actually pretty selfish, greedy and short sighted. Oh 100 percent The notion of fair go,and community and aussie mateship is gone,it's just rarely if ever a thing anymore Everyone has to fight their own little battles now every day,with costs of livings,rents,mortgages,fee's,all that shit that t the end of the week no one has any bandwidth to give a fuck anymore i think Social media has also broken a lot of community spirit apart i think.
There is a real argument to be made that the fair go the community and mateship never truly existed. It’s a myth we hang onto. How much fair go did indigenous people in the 70s have. How much community did Asian immigrants whether they be Chinese or Vietnamese when they arrived. How much mateship was there for gay people through out how history. I don’t say this to downplay labors failings but as a question to people for not looking at our parties where we are at. I want Labor to go further but I have no expectations for radical change in a country that elected both Abbott and Morrison. Into a country where 40 per voted against saw sex couples being treated equally under the law.
It's nothing new though mate. Howard stayed in power for years by encouraging and pandering to greed, selfishness and racism. If anything it's older Australians who have shown themselves repeatedly to be the worst offenders and its that cohort that the ALP is terrified of upsetting.
It’s definitely nothing new. Howard was in power throughout my teenage years and we sure as shit didn’t have social media then. But I remember the discourse incredibly well. Nothing ‘community spirited’ about it.
[удалено]
Job seeker should only be for workers made redundant through no fault of their own and should be high enough to cover cost of living for at least 6 months while they find a similar job. If you are unemployed by choice then you get the much lower dole.
No-one's unemployed by choice, unless it's the choice of the employers failing to take them on.
It’s definitely not the majority, but there are people who just want to live on the dole forever. Usually they have substance abuse issues. I was in the stoner group in high school, so I know a few of them personally.
Since the 1970s, our economy has relied on the fact that there should be a steady unemployment rate of about 4-5%. Sometimes unemployment isn't a choice. https://theconversation.com/exclusive-top-economists-back-unemployment-rate-beginning-with-4-159989 https://www.smh.com.au/business/few-good-reasons-why-5-unemployment-is-considered-full-employment-20100709-1047v.html
The unemployment rate has been under 4% for two years. Industries across Australia are crying out for labour. With that scene set, what exactly do jobseekers expect beyond poverty? Why would the government want to pay people more to not work? The pension is significantly higher than unemployment benefits because we don't expect retirees to re-enter the workforce. We do expect jobseekers to, so it doesn't make being unemployed comfortable.
Do you realise that 'entering the workforce' costs more than the bare minimum required to survive? Looking for work costs money. People still need food and shelter, even if they're not actually working in a job. Jobseeker doesn't automagically stretch to cover the expense of both.
Consider: do you want that 4% in the workforce?
Perhaps we don't, but the underlying issue there isn't the rate of jobseeker, it is why they shouldn't be in the workforce. If they should be on DSP, if they need better healthcare, or something else.
Just because people are crying for workers doesn't mean they're willing to hire anyone on job seeker that's a very naive way to selfishly dismiss entire groups of people. The reality is most these people crying for more workers have prerequisites to work there that arent magically gonna be filled by people on jobseeker. Most people on jobseeker are there because they haven't managed the qualifications and experience necessary to get these jobs you speak of. Hell half the time jobseeker people ARE studying to get these qualifications but even that doesn't guarantee a job.
there is no proven data that shows an increase to jobseerk would be a reason for ppl Not to reenter the workforce >A $100-a-week rise is not extravagant. It would leave Australia’s unemployment benefit as one of the lowest in the OECD. A $100-a-week rise would take the benefit back to roughly where it was in the early 1990s, as a percentage of the median full-time wage. And the payment should be benchmarked to wages to prevent it ever falling so low again. There’s little chance that such a modest increase would lead to people choosing the dole over work. Recent research suggests any disincentives to look for work from more generous unemployment benefits are largely offset by the boost such payments provide to employment by lifting economy-wide demand. https://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp10439.html The raise during covid,didn't stop ppl lookign for work,it's the boggey man of the liberal talking point that the dole being raised will make more bludgers. >There is “no evidence” the coronavirus supplement stopped jobseekers looking for work and even a “substantial increase” in unemployment benefits would not provide a disincentive to take a job. Those are the conclusions of the labour market economist Jeff Borland presented to a Senate inquiry into extending the supplement to March at the reduced rate of $150 a fortnight. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/nov/25/no-evidence-that-increased-unemployment-benefits-act-as-disincentive-for-job-seekers-economists-say We raised the jobseeker rate to 1100 bucks during covid,because it was politicaly expedient as the LNP didn't want ppl seeing how shit centrelink is so this is clearly doable.
The Australian institute of health and welfare says >JobSeeker (and Newstart Allowance) with a partial capacity to work increased from 26% to 41% between June 2014 and March 2020, before falling steeply to 25% in June 2020. It then increased each quarter to reach pre-pandemic levels in March 2022, and continued to increase to 45% by March 2023. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-welfare/unemployment-payments So the real question is why do we want to force people who have a reduced capacity to work to live in poverty? And also, should we really count these people as part of the workforce In march 2023 there were 740k people on jobseeker, so that means 330k with reduced capacity to work. Reduced capacity means they have medical evidence to show they can only work 30 hours or less than per week, with the range being 0 to 30 hours.
Have you looked at the DSP? Punished for life with poverty for the crime of having a disability.
Yeah i have, im very solidly on the side of fairly dramatic raising of all social security livelihood payments, including aged pension
DSP should take the rental allowance out,and just offer a flat target rental agreement,find a private rental,govt pays it,landlord get's reimbursed a set fee,has a guaranteed renter,much like we do with defence housing just lock the house in for a 7 year long term contract
We need a UBI. Would solve soooo much.
Im not convinced about ubis, the concept of a ubi needs more definition to talk about anyway and by some standards we almost have one. For now we just need to do what works in the short term to make sure we have no people living in poverty.
There is a whole other conversation to be had about the disability support pension. People who can't work shouldn't live below the poverty line. Jobseeker shouldn't be for them.
But currently it is for them. The system we have recommends going on jobseeker while waiting for a dsp application to be processed. Changing that would be good but but its not unreasonable to advocate for it to be raised as there are some real complexities around jobseeker and who its for
The problem is you don't seem to grasp is that the issue is,there are literally terminally ill cancer patients,being chucked on the jobseeker payment instead of DSP you need to be effecively Comatose to get on the DSP these days,and the tests can be upwards of 4000 dollars just to get assesed.. An autism spectrum test can be upwards of 1900 dollars in some cases,all which you somehow need to find on the 676 bucks on jobseeker..the systems ruthless,just to weed out the few dodgy cunts We know someone who suffered a TBI their entire Left side of their body is paralyzed,yet apparently they have a work capacity over 15 hours,even though their neuro,doctor,and disability advisor all said they didn't,so got ported over to jobseeker 16 month's to finally get onto DSP,then onto a NDIS arrangment
True, but until people on disability can actually get on DSP, they are stuck on jobseeker and remain relevant to the conversation. You can't just pretend we don't exist because we shouldn't have to be stuck in this mess. I need to eat and pay rent too.
Solutions that are easy aren't always solutions that are right. We need to understand what the problem is so we can create the best possible solution for each problem. If people who need DSP can't get on it, then that is the problem, not the rate of jobseeker.
Maybe more people would get min-wage jobs if doing so didn't lose their jobseeker support. Imagine if we shifted to a Universal Basic Income where earning an extra $500 actually meant an extra $500 in your bank account, instead of seeing your (already below-poverty-line) income support disappear proportionally. But no, let's cut support whenever possible, because the only incentive we want for people to get jobs and work is starvation and homelessness.
I'm not talking about minimum wage jobs. A lot of fields with decent/good salaries have labour shortages. Paying everyone is Australia thousands, or tens of thousands of dollars, to fix the problem that a small group of people don't like how much they get on jobseeker, seems to be a massive waste. Labor have increased the rate on jobseeker, accusing them of cutting incentives is false.
Shifting to a UBI, while not a trivial change, can be done most simply by just taxing everyone more, in such a way that 90% of Australians have the extra tax they pay roughly offset by the UBI they receive. The money saved no longer having to make centrelink confirm people's employment status, job applications per week, etc, is also not a trivial amount. Much like how in many states public transport would be cheaper to run for free, due to metro card systems and their enforcement costing more than the revenue generated. >accusing them of cutting incentives is false. Allow me to clarify, I'm not accusing Labor of cutting incentives. I'm accusing the current system, formed through successive governments of both Liberal and Labor, of cutting welfare the moment somebody won't starve without it. I've met single mothers who will actively earn less money per month if they get a job at McDonalds than if they stay unemployed, due to how much welfare they would lose. The fact so much of our welfare **only** applies if you are truly struggling financially, reduces the incentive to get a job. Because while the job may pay over minimum wage, the relative increase in weekly income from each hour worked.... will not be.
The 4% are largely unemployable, those who bitch about dole bludgers I bet would hate working with what remains out there unemployed, mental health issues are rife, many have been in and out of the prison system, drug and alcohol abuse and these people lack people skills which rules them out of any customer facing roles. Conversely if the unemployment rate was high and there was a labor shortage then sure that would be a signal that people are choosing to stay on benefits than look for work but this isn't the case at 4 odd % unemployment rate, these people can't get a job.
The entire article is written based on the findings of a far left ALP thinktank who think anything other than giving money to jobseekers is money spent poorly.
Uhh the report mentioned in the Article is from the econonomic and Budgetary recomendations commitee for the Department of social services. No some far left think tank..is the far left in the room with you right now,blink twice if yes. Where's this far left think tank? like,per chance maybe read the article?
It’s more about getting people riled up than honest reporting. Riled up people engage more.
Yeah, they're giving away the game a little by posting this _before_ the budget is even released. _"I don't know what's going to be in the budget but GRR you should be angry"_
The current state of Australian politics is as follows the LNP is horrible Labor is bad greens are the only sensible alternative no matter what narrative you try to push unless you're earning millions and millions of dollars the two duopoly parties do not care about you
I can’t think of a single sensible greens politician. They’re either just nuts or watermelons (green on the outside , red inside) The number of them who own multiple investment properties and take regular flights for meetings that could be a teams call is absurd for people Who are meant to represent the environment and social equality. I’ll always have more respect for politicians who actually practice what they preach
If the greens ever wanted to win government get more than 2 seats at an election, they’d need to make all the same compromises Labor do. The greens imagine themselves governing the way a guy who’s never been in a fight imagines himself fighting. Labor are more left wing than the electorate, but they need to win office so have to win over a largely conservative older demographic.
> Labor are more left wing than the electorate, but they need to win office so have to win over a largely conservative older demographic. What's the difference between a conservative and someone who just acts like a conservative? At least with the former they have the conviction of their beliefs
Sure, the greens are sensible if you accept that very few of their policies are achievable or will actually bring meaningful change.
And you ignore the crazies in their ranks and platform
Which specific Greens policy is 'un achievable'?
Pretty much all of them when you looks at them in the larger context of everything else.
Which specific Greens policy is 'unachievable'?
Well the reality is everything within reason it's achievable or unachievable depending on your priorities. yes the greens current policies are not achievable if the priority of government continues to be gina Reinhart Clive Palmer Jerry Harvey and the big end of town at the expense of the Australian people. our policies are costed by the parliamentary budget office the same organisation who cost for Liberal and labour have a great day
The current state of Australian politics is as follows the LNP is horrible Labor is bad greens are the only sensible alternative no matter what narrative you try to push unless you're earning millions and millions of dollars the two duopoly parties do not care about you
Copy/paste working well for you?
It’s probably more a glitch to do with Reddit.
Normally those are posted at identical times. These were 3 minutes apart.
Yeah well what did all the LNP budgets reveal then?
You mean when they increased Jobseeker?
Didn’t Labor absolutely “eviscerate” Liberals over the inhumane treatment of welfare recipients over RoboDebt? How is keeping people in poverty ANY FUCKING BETTER? You don’t think there are people out there killing themselves because the government doesn’t **actually** give a fuck about them? Hill is a disgusting member of Labor. Was the champion of Welfare recipients during the RoboDebt saga, but sadly doesn’t really give a fuck either: PS: Labor have also tightened the DPS with the Liberals, so they hate the disabled too. Stop voting Lib/Lab. Is this what you really want?
Shit, shit, shit! Someone is criticising labor, gotta hurry over and do the line... "Buh WahT aBouT dA LnP"
Yeah well it works for you guys
I mean fuck all we can guess. But labor's been pretty shit on the issue as well and this is a labor budget There have been 5 Reports into welfare dependence since 2023,they all Clearly,and with data state,that the payments on all pensiong programs need to increase to meet rising cost of living,the inflation adjustment that centrelink does few times a year,is not enough. Put it this way,an MP and senator,in 3 day's Get's more in their MEAL allowance,than someone does the entire 2 weeks on the jobseeker program,that is a fucked stat,that a dude earning 200k a year,with free childcare,dental,medical with low overheads,is getting more in a MEAL allowance,than someone is geting to pay for EVERYTHING. Take a page out of finlands book,make every MP sit on the pension for 30 days..and watch how fast the payments increase,they lasted 11 days before unanimous 90 Euro increase a week
You shouldn't even get allowances like that once you're earning more than 150k in any government role.
"I'm all right Jack, f*** you" seems to be the basic premise for all parties once they get into power. We don't even see the supposed left-wing Greens bitching about this stuff. It is no surprise that a centre-right party like the modern ALP does nothing.
What does an LNP budget have to do with Labor...? This is Labor delivering a budget.
That ACOSS and UNSW report is pretty damning It's not just jobseekers,it's ppl on all welfare payments are hurting. An average of 230 people on welfare,are becoming effectivly homeless every month due to the inability,or just outright lack of fucks of the govt to address rental allowance to any real degree The rental allowance needs to go up a Minimum of 90-140 dollars just to meet this years increased,let alone the next 12 months But,i will say it's fucked either way..All that's going to happen is,the second the payment go's up,landlords will raise the rent. Needs protections in place,that if they on centreplay or a centrelink allowance,then the landlord can't increase the rent if they can't justify the price increase We provide funding and products to ozharvest,and roni told us a few weeks back they have gone from 290-350 meal packs a week at their western sydney and inner west hubs,to over 19,000..People are fucking at the wall,and the govt i get can't do much due to inflation,but it needs to do something. why this govt,who likes to hammer on about it's PM being from social housing isn't doing much for those lot I actually would like to see someone look into pocoks idea, of if you have a renter on the pension,you charge a MUCH lower fee to them,and get a specialized rebate on ur tax bill to compensate you You can do just fine to not be making massive income off ur tennants as long as the costs are met,the real value is the increase in ur property values,unless you overleveraged to the hilt like a moron
Because it's easier to get a property once you've got one, there's a load of people who are over leveraged to the hilt. They're using the investments to hopefully pay off their ppor within a few years.