Help A Fellow Australian To Stay Drunk

[manticle]

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]

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 ad 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.

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]

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

 

[Steve@PMF82]

"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]

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]

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.

 

[Steve@PMF82]

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]

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]

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]

The whole welfare/singlemother/child support is ********

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 **** out of their eyes and wake up to the fact we live in a banana republic.

 

[Tim F]

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 **** when they want it?

 

[Crusty]

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]

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 **** 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.