# Help A Fellow Australian To Stay Drunk



## Bribie G (12/5/11)

If you are a Centrelink customer and get your income managed, you'd better get into AG as you won't be able to get kits on your BasicsCard. 

linky

Nanny society or responsible government policy? What would John Stuart Mill say?


----------



## Northside Novice (12/5/11)

brew for the dole would rock 

local council craft brew pub ?????


----------



## keifer33 (12/5/11)

Haha nice find. Just another advert for ag brewing for under $30. Although while its mashing the lack of porn and gambling will make the hour last forever.


----------



## ekul (12/5/11)

Here you go Bribie, a recipe i just invented

I call it 'Damn you satanlink Ale'

3 cans of saunders malt extract
.5kg sugar

20g POR @ 60

Ferment with tandaco yeast @ 18C, or ambient 

I wonder if coopers extract count as homebrew or not?

Its a bit ripe, homebrewing is a great pensioners hobby.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (12/5/11)

does everyone on the dole have their income managed or what?
I know of at least one bludger who is going to be very upset if that's the case.


----------



## Bribie G (12/5/11)

Liam_snorkel said:


> does everyone on the dole have their income managed or what?
> I know of at least one bludger who is going to be very upset if that's the case.



The Labor (punish the poor and screw the sick) govt. have announced that income management will be trialled in several locations from July next year as currently happens in many Aboriginal communities. Queensland has been awarded Rockhampton and Logan City. At the same time single mothers will have their tatts lasered off and their piercings forcibly removed. 
Basically they are just trying to get the jump on Abbott I guess.


----------



## InCider (12/5/11)

Bugger! Landsborough IGA's brewing section will take a big hit :lol:


----------



## Pollux (12/5/11)

If you are seriously that financially retarded that you can't even be trusted with a pension cheque, perhaps it's best that you just have your pension cut......


Overtime the stupid will breed themselves out saving even more in the budget.


----------



## Paul H (12/5/11)

Pollux said:


> Overtime the stupid will breed themselves out saving even more in the budget.



Nah I think we will have to have vascectomy or hand in your ovaries bonus for them to be bred out.

:icon_cheers: 

Paul


----------



## Bribie G (12/5/11)

Pollux you'd love the very underrated (at the time) but now fairly cult movie "Idiotocracy"

oops Idiocracy. I cant spel eny mor since PaulH slipped me that mickey at the BABs meting ... dur


----------



## Pollux (12/5/11)

Paul H said:


> Nah I think we will have to have vascectomy or hand in your ovaries bonus for them to be bred out.
> 
> :icon_cheers:
> 
> Paul



But without a cash incentive, surely they'll stop breeding???


Bribie: So hunting that movie down now.


----------



## asis (12/5/11)

Pollux said:


> If you are seriously that financially retarded that you can't even be trusted with a pension cheque, perhaps it's best that you just have your pension cut......
> 
> 
> Overtime the stupid will breed themselves out saving even more in the budget.



You haven't watched Idiocracy have you Pollux? 

Damn trying to do 2 things at once and reading slowly


----------



## spog (12/5/11)

doing 2 things at once and reading slowly is what our pm is very very good at.......  ....cheers.....spog........


asis said:


> You haven't watched Idiocracy have you Pollux?
> 
> Damn trying to do 2 things at once and reading slowly


----------



## seemax (12/5/11)

Didn't mention fresh work kits... they might even acquire a taste for some real beer whilst feeding their addiction.


----------



## rotten (12/5/11)

If you went AG grain bill, and added yeast, I reckon you could get away with it. Would hops be classed as flavouring bread?


----------



## Phoney (12/5/11)

BribieG said:


> Nanny society or responsible government policy? What would John Stuart Mill say?



Well, if the government is giving able-bodied adults free money to sit on their arse and do nothing, then it's only fair that the government should be able to have a say in how they spend that money. Dont like it? Then get a job, earn your own money and spend it as you wish 

During the second world war ration coupons were restricted to tea, sugar, butter, meat & clothing.


----------



## manticle (12/5/11)

That statement shows a complete lack of understanding of the welfare system and those who need/use it.

No I am not a welfare recipient.


----------



## Phoney (12/5/11)

Liam_snorkel said:


> does everyone on the dole have their income managed or what?
> I know of at least one bludger who is going to be very upset if that's the case.




Im pretty sure it's only for derelicts with dependents that blow all of their dole cheque's on booze, tobacco & gambling & their poor kids go without.


----------



## Thunderlips (13/5/11)

Paul H said:


> Nah I think we will have to have vascectomy or hand in your ovaries bonus for them to be bred out.


Too right.

These days there are just too many laws to protect the stupid.
It's getting much harder to knock yourself off and win a Darwin Award.
We just have to learn to live with them.


----------



## NickB (13/5/11)

BribieG said:


> Pollux you'd love the very underrated (at the time) but now fairly cult movie "Idiotocracy"
> 
> oops Idiocracy. I cant spel eny mor since PaulH slipped me that mickey at the BABs meting ... dur



Shut Up Brybeiie. I'll kick u in the balls. I like money.


----------



## beerdrinkingbob (13/5/11)

For what it's worth it is no longer compulsory it's voluntary, about 50% dropped off (men) when the change occurred and the rest (woman) stayed on to ensure the blokes couldn't spend the kids grocerry money on piss...

All that said, i'm not sure if their new idea is volunatary or not for families!


----------



## drew9242 (13/5/11)

phoneyhuh said:


> Well, if the government is giving able-bodied adults free money to sit on their arse and do nothing, then it's only fair that the government should be able to have a say in how they spend that money. Dont like it? Then get a job, earn your own money and spend it as you wish
> 
> During the second world war ration coupons were restricted to tea, sugar, butter, meat & clothing.




I aggree with you. It is the same with any money you recieve for nothing, there is always conditions.

Maybe manticle will care to enlighten us on what we misunderstood?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (13/5/11)

I like the idea that that those on welfare should be restricted as to where they can spend our money. 

I have seen way to many parents blow their dole/pension on piss and gambling


And as for the bloody liberal parties baby bonus..... dont get me started :angry:


----------



## [email protected] (13/5/11)

I can see a lot of k&k brewers resorting to making mead.


----------



## manticle (13/5/11)

Drew9242 said:


> I aggree with you. It is the same with any money you recieve for nothing, there is always conditions.
> 
> Maybe manticle will care to enlighten us on what we misunderstood?




Put simply, welfare recipients include many more people than the long term unemployed and unemployable.

You've lumped in aged pensioners and the disabled, students and single mothers with your stereotype.

I won't go into what a demotivational poverty trap the current system can be for people. Here try living on $200 a week and feel ashamed of yourself while doing it. If you try and work to supplement that and give yourself a bit of pride we'll cut that amount in half.

Some people are unemployable and addicts of various types. To suggest that's all welfare recipients displays an eagerness to demonise people you don't know due to stereotypes.


----------



## Bribie G (13/5/11)

FTWCIL I'm a part pensioner (carer) and I would love to get off my arse more than I do, to pay my way. However I'm limited to 25 hours a week away from my caree otherwise I have to go full time and Centrelink would then have to pay someone else to be the carer. Or put the caree in a home for $90,000 a year. So they are getting a really good deal from hundreds of thousands of carers who are juggling work and caring responsibilities and collecting a much reduced rate from the government. Centrelink actually hold seminars around the country entitled "keeping it all together" to encourage carers to work part time etc. 

One good thing to come out of the budget is Disability Pensions - up till Peter Costello / Amanda Vanstone pulled the rug out from under them, disso pensioners could work up to 30 hours and have their pensions tapered off, until they were back in the workforce (I know two people who did just that - a rellie who went and got a degree and works as a manager for a Queensland Nursing Organisation, and my good mate who also went to Uni, is now a phD and programming for a big Pharma in Sydney on about 100k. Some AHB members have actually had a drink with him and you wouldn't have recognised him 15 years ago. 

Then Captain Smirk and Amanda Fatstone cut the allowed hours back to 15. Half an hour over and you were chucked off the pension with no support at all. Nobody can live on 15 hours work so nearly all disso pensioners just stopped working and sat back to collect welfare. Now you can expect to see a heap of them back in the workforce even if it's just picking pineapples or working at Maccas, a job gives dignity and with more modern treatments many of them will get out of the clutches of Centrelink and become independent humans, like my two friends above.

So yes there's more to welfare recipients than tattooed pierced single mothers fare evading on trains and collecting baby bonuses.


----------



## Josh (13/5/11)

BribieG said:


> Pollux you'd love the very underrated (at the time) but now fairly cult movie "Idiotocracy"
> 
> oops Idiocracy. I cant spel eny mor since PaulH slipped me that mickey at the BABs meting ... dur



I've tried and failed to watch that movie twice. Very irritating.

Dax Shepard was born for that role.


----------



## TSMill (13/5/11)

Buy clothes and have a garage sale. Get money to buy beer kits.

problem solved!


----------



## [email protected] (13/5/11)

A Big + 1 from me, great post, people are so quick to judge and stick everyone in a single box without knowing anything of the history/story associated with an individuals life situation.

Its always people who have never experienced real hardship that get up on their high horse and feel the need to push people down lower, why? it must make them feel good and reinforce there postion in society.



BribieG said:


> FTWCIL I'm a part pensioner (carer) and I would love to get off my arse more than I do, to pay my way. However I'm limited to 25 hours a week away from my caree otherwise I have to go full time and Centrelink would then have to pay someone else to be the carer. Or put the caree in a home for $90,000 a year. So they are getting a really good deal from hundreds of thousands of carers who are juggling work and caring responsibilities and collecting a much reduced rate from the government. Centrelink actually hold seminars around the country entitled "keeping it all together" to encourage carers to work part time etc.
> 
> One good thing to come out of the budget is Disability Pensions - up till Peter Costello / Amanda Vanstone pulled the rug out from under them, disso pensioners could work up to 30 hours and have their pensions tapered off, until they were back in the workforce (I know two people who did just that - a rellie who went and got a degree and works as a manager for a Queensland Nursing Organisation, and my good mate who also went to Uni, is now a phD and programming for a big Pharma in Sydney on about 100k. Some AHB members have actually had a drink with him and you wouldn't have recognised him 15 years ago.
> 
> ...


----------



## drew9242 (13/5/11)

manticle said:


> Put simply, welfare recipients include many more people than the long term unemployed and unemployable.
> 
> You've lumped in aged pensioners and the disabled, students and single mothers with your stereotype.
> 
> ...



I would have thought pensioners, disabled, students and single mothers would not come under "abled body adults".

Anyway i can see your point to a degree, but like it that there are some restrictions. A lot of dole bludgers work under me for a couple of months and then get bored so they go back on the dole. That is why i group dole people a bit too much. Maybe i'm being harsh to the rest.


----------



## manticle (13/5/11)

Drew9242 said:


> I would have thought pensioners, disabled, students and single mothers would not come under "abled body adults".
> 
> Anyway i can see your point to a degree, but like it that there are some restrictions. A lot of dole bludgers work under me for a couple of months and then get bored so they go back on the dole. That is why i group dole people a bit too much. Maybe i'm being harsh to the rest.



It's a fair distinction (able bodied) in most respects I guess (although many pensioners, carers, single mothers, students etc are certainly able bodied) and I'll admit I read a bit too quickly the first time around. However people often do seem to view welfare recipients as layabouts without thinking of who receives welfare. Some are - I would argue a small proportion since the actual amount of welfare is so pissy and very difficult to live on. I even know a wheelchair bound cerebal palsy sufferer who can literally move his eyes, head and the fingers on his hands who was trying to find work to supplement his meagre income and give him something to do.

I'd like to see a welfare system that stops focussing so closely on the minority who want/will remain unemployable and actually, properly assist those who use the system as it should be used.


----------



## Bribie G (13/5/11)

The concept of State welfare is interesting - I did a couple of years of Philosophy at UNE in the fairly recent past and really got to understand how modern society came to be what it is. The whole rise of Industrial society centred around the end of the extended family, and the new "nuclear" family of Dad, Mum and the 2.8 kids who were mobile economic units and could move in a flash from rural Herefordshire to work in the Potteries or the steelworks. Along with all that, vast Victorian systems were created to control the population such as the police force, prisons, schools, etc. None of which existed even 60 years before (no there were very few prisons in the early 19th century which is why they transported so many people to here in particular. ) It was a remarkable transformation that still underlies our society today.

A result of this has been the new relationship between the individual and the State, where the individual stands naked under the constant Gaze of the State - Centrelink being a prime example in the Western World. In return for this "control" the State has to give welfare as part of this new "social contract" with the individual. 

However go to somewhere like the Philippines and there is no welfare as such. And you know what there are NO old folks homes, they don't have any concept of them. Individuals are all enmeshed within an extended family who looks after them. Rosy specs I know as there is obviously a lot of poverty. 

If we had retained the extended family in the same was as PI or India then I'm sure we wouldn't need welfare to any where near the same extent.

Quick edit: PHIL 101 was great and really ripped my socks off - if you hopped in your time machine and went back say 300 years and collared Mr Average in the street and asked him what was important, he'd probably say " to honour the King and Country, to serve the Lord Jesus Christ and attend Church every Sunday (compulsory) so that I may not rot in Hell, to provide for my family, and to follow my trade and know my place in the world."

Grab anyone nowadays off the street and it would be more like "Oh, get a good job, buy a house then a bigger house, a really nice SUV, look after SWMBO and the kids, get ripped at the gym, buy a couple of investment properties.. go to the Broncos every game...." 

Hang on, what happened? It's an interesting journey to read about.


----------



## Lecterfan (13/5/11)

Nothing like a bit of Foucault to stir the pot hey? Welcome to the Panopticon where *we know* what you are brewing.


----------



## Bribie G (13/5/11)

Lecterfan said:


> Nothing like a bit of Foucault to stir the pot hey? Welcome to the Panopticon where *we know* what you are brewing.



Never really got into him, it's such a shame for him that his name is pronounced "Fucko" :lol: :lol:


----------



## Lecterfan (13/5/11)

BribieG said:


> vast Victorian systems were created to control the population such as the police force, prisons, schools, etc. None of which existed even 60 years before (no there were very few prisons in the early 19th century which is why they transported so many people to here in particular. ) It was a remarkable transformation that still underlies our society today.
> 
> A result of this has been the new relationship between the individual and the State, where the individual stands naked under the constant Gaze of the State




That is Fucko. The threads you have tied together had not been linked genealogically and anthropologically (in the sociological way you've presented it) until his "Truth and Juridical Forms" (prior to that only in an historic, chronological, non-connotative way). Moving from punishment for an act committed to confinement for the liklihood of further acts that you _might_ commit. Scary, and as you say incredibly interesting. 

Sorry, I'll butt out.


----------



## Bribie G (13/5/11)

You have inspired me to have a serious look at Foucault


----------



## outbreak (13/5/11)

You two are giving me flashbacks to the continental philosophy unit I did at UWA..... It did wonders for me in terms of employment!


----------



## Mayor of Mildura (13/5/11)

what the bloody hell are you guys banging on about? my head hurts. Maybe i need some of your midnight train bribie?


----------



## Lecterfan (13/5/11)

outbreak said:


> You two are giving me flashbacks to the continental philosophy unit I did at UWA..... It did wonders for me in terms of employment!



:lol: 




mayor of mildura said:


> what the bloody hell are you guys banging on about? my head hurts. Maybe i need some of your midnight train bribie?



...I think anything will do, I've used up the last of mesa99's porter and am nearing the end of batch 1 of my "better red than dead". 

I also FINALLY bottled my mead today so am pretty sure that I'll have a tipple of that before bed. It took 11 months and two rackings to get it nice and clear, but there you go. One of my oldest friends sent me a text an hour or so ago letting me know his 2nd child (this one's a boy) has entered the world...so I HAD to have a drink...and that (of course) led me to comment on this post (which I had vowed to otherwise stay away from - but happily it didn't become all gloomy and political).

So if anyone out there is wondering whether or not to have another beer tonight...you now have an excuse...my mate has had his second kid, a son. Huzzah!


----------



## manticle (13/5/11)

Bad time to bring up various philosophies on population growth then?


----------



## Lecterfan (13/5/11)

manticle said:


> Bad time to bring up various philosophies on population growth then?




Bad time if you don't want me to reply 


edit: OH! I get it.....gloomy and political...sorry, cog...nit...ive....funk...shun....sl..ow..ing...


----------



## gone_fishing (13/5/11)

Yeah, single muvvas should be compensated. Poor little things being dominated by the system and abusive men
GF


----------



## manticle (13/5/11)

gone_fishing said:


> Yeah, single muvvas should be compensated. Poor little things being dominated by the system and abusive men
> GF



Single parents of either gender.

Whole family court/children/parent's rights system needs a shake-up as well.


----------



## davo4772 (13/5/11)

phoneyhuh said:


> Im pretty sure it's only for derelicts with dependents that blow all of their dole cheque's on booze, tobacco & gambling & their poor kids go without.




And the rest they wasted.


----------



## hendog88 (13/5/11)

manticle said:


> Put simply, welfare recipients include many more people than the long term unemployed and unemployable.
> 
> You've lumped in aged pensioners and the disabled, students and single mothers with your stereotype.
> 
> ...



thanks Manticle :beer: , id been reading through this thinking wow ive been stereotyped... im an apprentice greenkeeper, first year i earn $300 a week from my wage and usually get about $150 a fortnight from centrelink to help me through! its bloody tough but it all helps.. tho im not a fan of those that arent trying to help themselves and are just claiming the money for nothing.. that said ive just found out that the bowling club i work at is being shut down in 6 weeks and ill be out of a job after that. so if any1 knows of a bowling club that needs a first year apprentice, send their name my way!


----------



## felten (13/5/11)

hmm I've been out of work for a decade, maybe I should finally jump on the dole train


----------



## Bribie G (13/5/11)

What you really need to do is to research your Aboriginal past, get a declaration of Aboriginality from an elder and you can then go to Uni and get onto abstudy which is a far better rate than austudy (or youth allowance). Also you can do a masters on abstudy which other (i.e. newer) Australians aren't allowed to do, and milk the system for the next ten years. 
OOps did I just say the above?
Naughty me.
But it's true. h34r: h34r:


----------



## Tim F (14/5/11)

BribieG said:


> A result of this has been the new relationship between the individual and the State, where the individual stands naked under the constant Gaze of the State - Centrelink being a prime example in the Western World. In return for this "control" the State has to give welfare as part of this new "social contract" with the individual.



The reason we have Centrelink etc is so people who are unable to support themselves can become self sufficient. It is a communal, civilised way of supporting each other when we need it and it has nothing whatsoever to do with controlling people in any way. This was the principle behind welfare payments when they were introduced and I guarantee that it is still true right now.


----------



## Crusty (15/5/11)

Punish the workers who hold down two or sometimes three part time jobs.
Take extra tax from them & give it to the Junkie's that go to the beach all day, smoke bongs in the afternoon
& drink piss all night. Get up around 10am & repeat the process.
We receive a fortnightly supplement income from Centrelink as my wife works 12hrs per week, permanent part time & I work casual,
28-30hrs per week. The welfare system is so screwed up that when I took on a second job as a mail contractor on a postie bike,
we lost our health care card, I could only get the tax free threshold from the one employer & Centrelink took $120.00 per fortnight
off us as our combined gross was just under $50,000.00 per year. This sends a very clear message that by getting off your arse & working harder,
you will be hammered for having a go. I will never work full time again to receive less money, it's frigging ridiculous. I have never been unemployed & have been offered
a full time job only two weeks ago & I did the math, & we are worse off taking on the full time job. I would be receiving less money per week & all the benefits stripped
from us for trying to better ourselves & support our children. This Government really stinks. What's the alternative for running this country? I donkey voted on the last two 
elections as well as our local elections as I cannot see a single person in power or opposition who makes any credible sense that doesn't dribble horse shit.
Stop punishing the workers, robbing small business & forcing our pensioners ( once tax payers ) to the threshold of bankruptcy or support dependancy. No wonder our crime rate is on the rise as everyday people are forced into situations to try & survive. The people in power are so out of touch with everyday Australian's, it's absolutely disgusting.
Don't get me started on the illegal refugees or boat people either. Australia's the place to go for free accomodation, housing, food & hardship money.
*YOU GO LABOUR, WELL DONE!*


----------



## Paul H (15/5/11)

To add another perspective as an employer, our business employs two women who job share a Mon-Fri weekday administrative role. Both women are a valuable asset to our business. One of the women has sought to reduce her availabliity from 3 to 2 days per week. We had asked the other if she was interested in moving to 3 days. After a couple of days deliberation she came back to us declining the offer on the basis that she would be better off financially to remain at two days as in her situation of of being married to a tradie with a fixed salary & having twin children in day care. Ironically they both need the additional income to support their lifestyles, which are by no means extravagent.

As our business is growing we need the coverage of 5 days a week. The new job sharing arrangements do not suit our needs & as a result it looks like we may have to discard the job sharing arrangement & hire a full time staff member. The net result is that two families will now have their standard of living reduced. As an employer & business owner we are able to increase our financial positions & that of our family though working harder, longer & smarter without financial penalty, apart from an increased tax burden (don't get me started). However if you are an employee you have no such opportunity unless you are in a position that is very well paid.

Cheers

Paul


----------



## Crusty (15/5/11)

Paul H said:


> To add another perspective as an employer, our business employs two women who job share a Mon-Fri weekday administrative role. Both women are a valuable asset to our business. One of the women has sought to reduce her availabliity from 3 to 2 days per week. We had asked the other if she was interested in moving to 3 days. After a couple of days deliberation she came back to us declining the offer on the basis that she would be better off financially to remain at two days as in her situation of of being married to a tradie with a fixed salary & having twin children in day care. Ironically they both need the additional income to support their lifestyles, which are by no means extravagent.
> 
> As our business is growing we need the coverage of 5 days a week. The new job sharing arrangements do not suit our needs & as a result it looks like we may have to discard the job sharing arrangement & hire a full time staff member. The net result is that two families will now have their standard of living reduced. As an employer & business owner we are able to increase our financial positions & that of our family though working harder, longer & smarter without financial penalty, apart from an increased tax burden (don't get me started). However if you are an employee you have no such opportunity unless you are in a position that is very well paid.
> 
> ...



Well said Paul,
This is the exact situation I find myself in. Getting an extra day of work for me will also attract a penalty for trying to financially benefit my family.
We have to give a yearly estimate to centrelink who in turn works out what benefit we are entitled to based on our gross combined income.
Do I want to receive a supplement income, No I don't, I can't stand the losers but unfortunately we are in a situation of not earning enough gross income 
to be able to support ourselves. To omitt Centrelink completely, I would need to be earning $75,000.00 per year to support my wife & children as well.
Not too many jobs paying that kind of money these days.


----------



## Bribie G (15/5/11)

Welcome to the "poverty trap" :icon_cheers: 

When I arrived in Australia in the 1970s there was full employment, no "underclass" like we see today and it seemed that everybody (unless you owned a business) was on more or less the same income level and could live comfortably on that. It was most unusual to be on the dole for more than a few weeks until you could secure another job and welfare benefits were very limited. I seem to remember getting $130 a fortnight or similar until I got my first job at around $150 a week, which was average. If you earned over $200 a week you were considered well off. However you have to look at the living standards of the time. 

The problem nowadays is that most people would just refuse to accept the lifestyle of those days, it's almost like a different planet. This is what it was like in Bundaberg in the early 70s - a fairly typical mid sized city.

Three bedroom chamferboard house with one bathroom, a single car (e.g. EH Holden with no air con or heating) - a black and white TV that would cost you a fortnight's pay. No computer or internet. No eftpos or ATMs, if you wanted money you had to physically go to the bank and queue to get it out. Hardly any supermarkets in today's sense. No mobile phones. No social networking or forums  Most people walked down to the pay phone if they needed to make a call. No Maccas. Only two beers on tap take your choice. Virtually no public transport apart from a couple of rattletrap buses four times a day weekdays. Universal drink driving. Women had to leave their jobs at banks and local councils if they got married. (hence virtually no male unemployment). No overseas holidays although some adventurous souls were getting to Bali. No freeways in Queensland anyway. Holidays were at a caravan park at the beach. Definitely no poofs or boongs thanks. List goes on. 

But people were happy because they didn't know anything else, like us nowadays I suppose. However most people could live just fine and I never remember any complaints about the cost of living or the impossibility of owning a home ( my first house was $19,000 ) 





Like the Chinese Curse, we definitely have come to live in interesting times


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (15/5/11)

The whole welfare/singlemother/child support is bullshit

My ex has worked out that she can work 1 day a week, get single mothers pension, get all MY family tax benefit A & B, get child support from me and end up with more money in the hand than I do, and I have to work.

Now when it comes to me wanting more than 5 days a fortnight with my kids, she refuses, the reason being is that once I get more time with the kids her child support and family tax goes down. But does she say that in mediation or court.....of course not...she just refuses to give me more time. She also bleats that she cant get more work, but that is crap, as the more work she gets, the less she gets from the government.

Its about time the system was made so that lazy arse people cant make a living at other peoples/tax payers expense


----------



## manticle (15/5/11)

My brother's going through a similar thing with the mother of his child.

She doesn't work, lives with her own mum and has other children with other fathers.

My brother has been employed with the same company for years, has a decent income, has met every single child support payment in full and on time and has recently married. He has no criminal record or history of drug/alcohol abuse and basically no reason to be denied access to his child.

The system is definitely skewed and in need of a proper shake-up - just not the kind of 'reform' that simply maes it difficult for those using the system as it should be used while continuing to allow the wilful abuse by those who know how to work it.


----------



## BobtheBrewer (15/5/11)

Tim F said:


> The reason we have Centrelink etc is so people who are unable to support themselves can become self sufficient.




I would suggest that there is a fair proportion of people receiving Centrelink benefits who are unwilling to make the effort to support themselves.


----------



## Tim F (15/5/11)

Birkdale Bob said:


> I would suggest that there is a fair proportion of people receiving Centrelink benefits who are unwilling to make the effort to support themselves.


In my experience (I work at Centrelink) It's very much the minority. The vast majority of customers genuinely have just fallen on hard times, lost their job, or stuff going on in their life and they can't work, but they are looking for work again or working up to it. Personally I'm happy if a few percent of my taxes are going to the odd slacker if so much more of it is really helping people.

*Note - this is just my opinion, not Centrelinks official position.


----------



## jasonharley (15/5/11)

Tim F said:


> The reason we have Centrelink etc is so people who are unable to support themselves can become self sufficient. It is a communal, civilised way of supporting each other when we need it and it has nothing whatsoever to do with controlling people in any way. This was the principle behind welfare payments when they were introduced and I guarantee that it is still true right now.





The real issue is transition. Take away welfare immediately and crime will likely go up....... there are third generation families who have never work a day in their life and find getting up in the morning a major challenge. So resorting to crime is a way for some to survive because working would be a foreign concept. Furthermore, because Australia has no 'family contract' ie. the responsiblity of children to parents ..... there is no family support networks like in Asian countries..... this makes reliance on the state more liekly. But like many outdated political concepts, the welfare state needs to be replaced. The State is running out of options, especially in the face of globalisation ...... the poor will always be there .....so get use to it !!!


----------



## yum beer (15/5/11)

Crusty said:


> Punish the workers who hold down two or sometimes three part time jobs.
> Take extra tax from them & give it to the Junkie's that go to the beach all day, smoke bongs in the afternoon
> & drink piss all night. Get up around 10am & repeat the process.
> We receive a fortnightly supplement income from Centrelink as my wife works 12hrs per week, permanent part time & I work casual,
> ...




FFS Crusty, what maths did you do?

Centrelink only reduce your payments as a percentage of your income..it is not possible to be worse off.......
thats a typical cop out from a dole bludger...if thats not what you are...take the full time job, put an extra few dollars in ya pocket,
hold yer head high, brew your beer and thank **** you had assistance to help when you needed it!


----------



## yum beer (15/5/11)

Birkdale Bob said:


> I would suggest that there is a fair proportion of people receiving Centrelink benefits who are unwilling to make the effort to support themselves.




just for interest...90% of the population of Australia recieve some form of Centrelink payment/assistance.

Thats a lot of slack arse bludgers...ow I just kicked my toe on one.


----------



## outbreak (15/5/11)

Five Eyes Brewing Company said:


> The real issue is transition. Take away welfare immediately and crime will likely go up....... there are third generation families who have never work a day in their life and find getting up in the morning a major challenge. So resorting to crime is a way for some to survive because working would be a foreign concept. Furthermore, because Australia has no 'family contract' ie. the responsiblity of children to parents ..... there is no family support networks like in Asian countries..... this makes reliance on the state more liekly. But like many outdated political concepts, the welfare state needs to be replaced. The State is running out of options, especially in the face of globalisation ...... the poor will always be there .....so get use to it !!!



I totally agree... Our sense of family and civic responsibility is warped. These days we are not citizens as that requires a moral responsibility, we are only consumers.

I just don't understand how someone who has the ability to work a good honest day, doesn't. I work 50 hours a week (no im not looking for sympathy) and I am looking for a Saturday job so I can save for a chance to own a shitbox in a crappy suburb all because the baby boomers thought it was a good idea to treat their homes as investments and totally fucked the property market. I complain about it sometimes but I know what I have to do to change my situation, and I am doing it.


Both my parents worked when I was little. Dad was the main income, and mum worked at a restaurant 3 times a week at night, and when we went to school mum started working during the day. I don't understand how it is so hard? To get a job that earn approx 45k a year is easy in any retail setting (i've been there and done that) and to get casual wages to the tune of 20k a year isn't hard at all. I don't understand how a thrifty family couldn't survive off that and then if the main income earner worked hard and excelled at their job to get a promotion things would get easier and they could even look at saving money.


----------



## manticle (15/5/11)

yum beer said:


> FFS Crusty, what maths did you do?
> 
> Centrelink only reduce your payments as a percentage of your income..it is not possible to be worse off.......
> thats a typical cop out from a dole bludger...if thats not what you are...take the full time job, put an extra few dollars in ya pocket,
> hold yer head high, brew your beer and thank **** you had assistance to help when you needed it!



Theoretically: Couple X earn $900 per week.

700 of that income is from partner 1 working 4 days per week. The other 200 is from disability allowance paid to partner 2.

Partner 1 is offered an extra day and the capability to earn 150 extra per week. As a result of the extra income from partner 1, partner 2's income is cut off. Hence couple X now work 1 extra day per week for less money.

Off the top of my head I have no idea what the figures are and those I've used have been arbritraily employed to illustrate a theoretical point. However theoretical, it does and can happen. Presumably this is what Crusty is alluding to.


----------



## yum beer (15/5/11)

manticle said:


> Theoretically: Couple X earn $900 per week.
> 
> 700 of that income is from partner 1 working 4 days per week. The other 200 is from disability allowance paid to partner 2.
> 
> ...




In this situation patner 2 would lose 112.50 of her payments. A gross increase of $37.50 per week. Partner 2 would only have payment cut off if it was less then $112.50 per week.
I agree the system we have is not always the best, but it does not leave anybody with less money because they earn more from work.

I think what Crusty is alluding to is that he would rather work his 30 hours a week and maintain the payments they get, then to take on an extra 8 hours a week for somewhere in the vivinity of $30 extra in his pocket.....thats his choice to make, but he shouldnt blame the system for a decision that he made.


----------



## manticle (15/5/11)

You did read the bit where I suggested actual numbers employed were theoretical and arbritrary didn't you?


----------



## [email protected] (15/5/11)

"I agree the system we have is not always the best, but it does not leave anybody with less money because they earn more from work."


Speaking from personal experience, most of the time this statement is true, but in some circumstances it is incorrect, you can end up worse off.


----------



## outbreak (15/5/11)

being worse off for working? Having purpose and adding to society? This is such a short term outlook. Yes you maybe not as well of for the time being, but work well and get a higher paying job or a promotion? Most people earning 100k a year dont just walk into their jobs, they make sacrifices and work hard.


----------



## yum beer (15/5/11)

manticle said:


> You did read the bit where I suggested actual numbers employed were theoretical and arbritrary didn't you?




yes I did Manticle.
sorry, wasnt having a go.
Just amazes me that so many people banter the 'Im worse off working' mantra that it becomes accepted as true.

Beer4U, i would be interested in a situation where someone by means of increaing their income has became worse off financially.


----------



## [email protected] (15/5/11)

I am referring to people on DSP, if you go back to page 2 and read Bribies post, it explains the situation perfectly.

By taking up more work after a certain point, you get cut off, hence you end up with less money.

It has been changed by the current Govt, but these changes will not come into effect until July 2012.

Just for the record, i work my ass off, for my capacity and it ends up quite a bit above my comfort levels - but i continue to do it out of my own work ethic.

I RELY on part payment from Clink, if i worked an hour more a week, i would be worse off 6 to 8 k per year - still with the same living expenses - actually more, as it costs more to be out and about working than sitting around the house.

SO i would be a lot worse off financially and be experiencing poorer health, for what..? the " dignity" and "pride" associated with 
having a job runs pretty thin, when you cant afford to fuel the fire to do the work.

cheers


----------



## yum beer (15/5/11)

Get serious,

you get a DSP because you cant 'work' full time and you complain that if you work over 15 hours they cut you off.

I had 3 heart attacks late last year, a triple by-pass and the bottom 15% of my heart is dead.
I dont qualify for a DSP, I work 16 hours a week and struggle to do that.

If you get a DSP and can work more than 15 hours a week, how much support do you really need.


----------



## yum beer (16/5/11)

It appears I got a little carried away last night.

To anyone I may have offended or put off I am very sorry, I allowed some personal issues to creep into my responses,
and as such I put forward some thoughts that were unreasonable and possibly hurtfull.

I apologise terribly to everybody.
The support and help that everybody offers and shares is fantastic and I was certainly out of line.

Again....SORRY.


----------



## gone_fishing (16/5/11)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> The whole welfare/singlemother/child support is bullshit
> 
> My ex has worked out that she can work 1 day a week, get single mothers pension, get all MY family tax benefit A & B, get child support from me and end up with more money in the hand than I do, and I have to work.
> 
> ...



I agree. The Child $upport Agency provides a monetary incentive to stop children seeing one parent. The government should be held accountable for this breach of childrens rights (ie. The new stolen generation). Parents/children who are/have suffered from this feminist driven government endorsed abuse should be compensated!!!!!

Did you know that for every dollar collected for "Child support" it costs between $7 and $10 to administer?


----------



## Golani51 (16/5/11)

phoneyhuh said:


> Well, if the government is giving able-bodied adults free money to sit on their arse and do nothing, then it's only fair that the government should be able to have a say in how they spend that money. Dont like it? Then get a job, earn your own money and spend it as you wish
> 
> During the second world war ration coupons were restricted to tea, sugar, butter, meat & clothing.



How did you come to this conclusion??
I lost my job two months ago, yet have been working and studying full-time (each full-time, not combined) since 2004. My kids go to private schools and private creche, and I am having a bitch of a time finding work. I have never turned down a job when I was out of work, irrespective of the pay and conditions because it is who I am.
Please rethink your entirely non- constructive, irrelevant and inaccurate comments for someone equally obnoxious.


----------



## Golani51 (16/5/11)

yum beer said:


> FFS Crusty, what maths did you do?
> 
> Centrelink only reduce your payments as a percentage of your income..it is not possible to be worse off.......
> thats a typical cop out from a dole bludger...if thats not what you are...take the full time job, put an extra few dollars in ya pocket,
> hold yer head high, brew your beer and thank **** you had assistance to help when you needed it!




Untrue:

I was working full- time, and after our son was born, we would lose several hundred a fortnight if my wife worked 5 days instead of 3. Childcare drops, as do other things here and there. Sad but undeniable.


----------



## yum beer (16/5/11)

Golani51 said:


> Untrue:
> 
> I was working full- time, and after our son was born, we would lose several hundred a fortnight if my wife worked 5 days instead of 3. Childcare drops, as do other things here and there. Sad but undeniable.




Things may drop off like childcare but you still start with more cash...thats all Im saying...
childcare etc are issues outside the problem.


----------



## Crusty (16/5/11)

Golani51 said:


> Untrue:
> 
> I was working full- time, and after our son was born, we would lose several hundred a fortnight if my wife worked 5 days instead of 3. Childcare drops, as do other things here and there. Sad but undeniable.



+1
This is absolutely true. here is an example of my situation & where we are at.

Example 1:
28hrs P/T: rate for me, take home $520.00
Wife: PPT: $213.00 per week
Family tax benefit, Part A/B: $484.00 per fortnight
This gives us $975.00 per week + health care card + childcare rebate @ preschool, we have 2 kids & another on the way.

Example 2:
Work F/T: Take home pay $555.00 per week
Wife: PPT: $213.00 per week
Family tax benifit part A, now loose partB, $307.00 per fortnight, no health care card & no childcare rebate.
Total now: $916.00 per week.

Summary:
Who the bloody hell would feel compelled to work an extra 8-10hrs per week, pay more for childcare & to top it off, have to pay full prices for scripts due to no health care card when your children get sick & have $59.00 per week less in your pocket.

I have never been unemployed & in no way feel I'm bludging off the Government. To not need any form of assistance would be fantastic but I sure the bloody hell am not going to bust my arse & loose money in the process.


----------



## outbreak (16/5/11)

A couple renting with two kids the father earning 45k a year and mother earning 10k a year with kids in childcare gets.

(You can earn up to a combine income of 55k a year and still get a health care card if you have two kids)

Tax Benifit A: $273.98
Tax Benifit B: $96.04
Rent Assistance: $107.52

Dad takes home: $734 
Wife takes home: $192

Take Home Weekly $1,110.50 (not including the $107 dollars of rent assistance)


I am not having a go at anyone here.... I was just interested in the figures so I went on the centerlink website and entered in details for a Family with two kids one 7 years and one 4 years old. Please correct me if the figures are wrong.


----------



## Tim F (16/5/11)

Yeah Crusty you def will not loose FTB part B if you're taking home $555 per week. We're in a similar situation - a one income family with kid and my take home pay is more than that and we still get FTB part A + B. Did you get those figures from Centrelink? As long as you earn less than $150k a year, FTB part B is based on the lower earners income and in your example your wifes income won't change so your FTB part B won't change.


----------



## booargy (16/5/11)

It amazes me how people look at the "dole bludgers" but take no notice of who is really ripping the system off. 
The military cost $19,799,000,000 in 2010. That is $54,243,835 per/day $2,260,159 per/hour $37,669 per/min. The average persons wage is spent 1 min. The war on terror is an added expense. there were no WMD. oh but it was alright because because we got rid of soddam. so it is alright to lie to us about killing others but not about a tax. To go to war you need to be warlike and hate. When this happens they blame alcohol. 
We have our ministers reporting to US officials. Government policy is set by large corporations.
an example would be gerry harvey whining about people actually using the world trade to their advantage (exactly what he does) so the government changes the law for him. 
What about the government allowing companies to bring in as many workers from third world countries as they like. who loses out of this. Aussies need to clean the elephant shit out of their eyes and wake up to the fact we live in a banana republic.


----------



## Tim F (16/5/11)

booargy said:


> Government policy is set by large corporations.
> an example would be gerry harvey whining about people actually using the world trade to their advantage (exactly what he does) so the government changes the law for him.



You'd have noticed that what actually happened was the government told him to suck it up and nothing changed?

You'd rather have no defence forces and just let anyone waltz in and take our shit when they want it?


----------



## Crusty (16/5/11)

Another bogus situation is holding down 2 jobs. You may only claim the tax free thresh hold from the 1 employer ( most income ) & will pay more tax for having the second job.
If you work full time, which I have for many, many years, you pay a % of tax for the gross amount earned ( 38-40hr week ) most commonly.
It really sucks if you work 2 part time jobs, 38-40hrs per week & pay extra tax on that second job.
The reason I am casual, 28-30hrs per week, is I get the equivalent pay for someone working full time but have to do less hrs for it.
If I could score a full time job working in a brewery, I wouldn't bork at that opportunity & although I would be taking home a little less, job satisfaction plays a pretty big part in your overall happiness. If I had my time again, I would of went to Uni or got myself a trade & maybe wouldn't be in this situation.
Just to clear things up, I am not a dole bludger, I am currently employed, have never been unemplyed nor claimed the dole, but due to our piss poor gross income, we get a supplement from the Government, part A+B. Would I love to not deal with Centrelink at all, you bet.


----------



## booargy (16/5/11)

> You'd have noticed that what actually happened was the government told him to suck it up and nothing changed?



didn't research that so I am wrong. 



> Just to clear things up, I am not a dole bludger, I am currently employed,



Was not having a go at you
I had a go at the dole (to see what it was like) and it sucked. so I got a job. it was pretty good money but you only got one day a fortnight 



> You'd rather have no defence forces and just let anyone waltz in and take our shit when they want it?



so simply isn't it. have you ever thought of the logistics of invading this country. anyway why would they bother when they can buy it. the cost would be much less.


----------



## manticle (16/5/11)

Tim F said:


> You'd rather have no defence forces and just let anyone waltz in and take our shit when they want it?




I don't think that's fair nor the point booary was making. The equivalent point with welfare would be 'you'd rather no welfare and people dying on the streets of typhoid and starvation?' if someone complained about the cost to the taxpayer .

I believe the point booargy was making is that tax money goes to a lot of things that the taxpayer may not agree with. Buying submarines for billions of dollars that don't work might be one of those*

People spend a lot of time whinging about where their tax dollars go (or where the Herald Sun tells them they go) without ever realising that all their tax goes wherever someone else decides it should go. Citizens have very little say and I bet my 3V system in progress that if we abolished welfare, said citizens would see very little decrease in their tax. There'd be another thing to spend it on.

*Fictitious example based on a memory of a defence acquisition read about in the paper where said equipment cost a lot and was essentially useless. I know such things have happened and can research the details if absolutely necessary.


----------



## Nevalicious (16/5/11)

manticle said:


> *Fictitious example based on a memory of a defence acquisition read about in the paper where said equipment cost a lot and was essentially useless. I know such things have happened and can research the details if absolutely necessary.



Can anyone say Collins Class Submarines... <_<


----------



## barls (16/5/11)

Nevalicious said:


> Can anyone say Collins Class Submarines... <_<


which is currently the worlds best non nuclear sub. even the us have admitted it after a couple war games.
people in this country just arent use to the us building our own equipment. 

i think what manicle was talking about was other items like HMAS Kanimbla and Manoora, worst buy ever.


----------



## avaneyk (16/5/11)

barls said:


> which is currently the worlds best non nuclear sub. even the us have admitted it after a couple war games.
> people in this country just arent use to the us building our own equipment.
> 
> i think what manicle was talking about was other items like HMAS Kanimbla and Manoora, worst buy ever.



Yeah, from what I've read, they had some issues with prop noise and generator systems on the first design but that's all sorted now.


----------



## barls (16/5/11)

exactly teething issues.
any sub that can have the americans bragging that they never saw them all exercise but then have the australian captain walk up and drop a folder of pics of the props of every ship in the carrier group they were against on the table and not say a thing but just walk off. i think we are doing well. 

other purchases though, where ive just left is shocking for it. by the time it makes it through the acceptance process, the equipment is obsolete.


----------



## yum beer (16/5/11)

Crusty said:


> Another bogus situation is holding down 2 jobs. You may only claim the tax free thresh hold from the 1 employer ( most income ) & will pay more tax for having the second job.
> If you work full time, which I have for many, many years, you pay a % of tax for the gross amount earned ( 38-40hr week ) most commonly.
> It really sucks if you work 2 part time jobs, 38-40hrs per week & pay extra tax on that second job.
> The reason I am casual, 28-30hrs per week, is I get the equivalent pay for someone working full time but have to do less hrs for it.
> ...



Crusty, the tax-free threshold is calculated on your total income. if you claim the threshold from both employers you dont pay enough tax.
you will pay the same amount of tax on the same amount of income whether it comes from one employer or two.


----------



## Crusty (17/5/11)

yum beer said:


> Crusty, the tax-free threshold is calculated on your total income. if you claim the threshold from both employers you dont pay enough tax.
> you will pay the same amount of tax on the same amount of income whether it comes from one employer or two.



This is absolutely true but unfortunately I can't wait till the end of the financial year to get some tax back if any.
I need more in my pocket each week. This is why in MY situation, there is no point working two jobs or increasing
my hours only to have useable dollars slashed from my partner. I can totally understand why people don't want to 
work anymore than set hours. We were definatly worse off for the last two years whilst I was doing two jobs, 44hrs
per week.


----------



## yum beer (17/5/11)

Theres always gonna be those who get fucked over by the system.

No boubt the Gov have their heads up their arses, or probably more correctly up someone elses arse.

My son who turned 16 last year cant get Youth Allowance because we earnt too much last financial year...2009/2010. 
I had to leave full time work and we now get $20,000 less this fianacial year, but stiff shit for us. no backdated payments, he just misses out for nearly a year.
They were quick to cut our Family Assistance though.


----------



## Josh (19/5/11)

Tim F said:


> You'd have noticed that what actually happened was the government told him to suck it up and nothing changed?
> 
> You'd rather have no defence forces and just let anyone waltz in and take our shit when they want it?



You'd have also noticed that while no policy or legislation was changed, for a while, extra money was spent on researching Gerry's claims and enforcing the import charges harder.


----------

