 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
Absolutely. No taxpayer money for having children. You want children, that's fine. Pay for them yourself. Don't expect other, more responsible people to pay for your selfish decisions.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
 |
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
this article points to a massive increase in welfare costs for the next generation, and also massive health care costs.
personal responsibility, not choosing the easy way out, not going for the quick fix, just like I reckon our government need to do, bite the bullet, and do the hard work.
but it wont happen, they will just invent another pill, or operation; like everything, the dollar rules, there is more money in treating the symptoms forever, than finding a cure.
we be £$%$ed!
the aliens wont invade up, they are just waiting for us to finish ourselves off!!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
sixpoints
Joined: 27 Sep 2010
Location: Lulie Street
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Why should governments commit taxpayers money to fund/reimburse any lifestyle choice?
You want kids that's good but go pay for them yourself.
You want to own a second house, good for you, but let's end gifting away billions in taxpayers money to these leaners.
You want a private school for your kids, great. But why expect taxpayers to supplement your choice?
You want a flash car, cool..but don't expect taxpayers to pick up the tab for your lease.
You want to set up a family trust, no problem. But don't expect to avoid tax.
On the stuff no one can really avoid - illness, ageing then fine, they are not choices and taxpayers should pay. But for lifestyle choices or scamming tax dodges no way! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| sixpoints wrote: | Why should governments commit taxpayers money to fund/reimburse any lifestyle choice?
You want kids that's good but go pay for them yourself.
You want to own a second house, good for you, but let's end gifting away billions in taxpayers money to these leaners.
You want a private school for your kids, great. But why expect taxpayers to supplement your choice?
You want a flash car, cool..but don't expect taxpayers to pick up the tab for your lease.
You want to set up a family trust, no problem. But don't expect to avoid tax.
On the stuff no one can really avoid - illness, ageing then fine, they are not choices and taxpayers should pay. But for lifestyle choices or scamming tax dodges no way! |
What about illness brought on by lifestyle choices?
Read the article I posted above, not taking responsibility for what we eat, and how we look after our bodies, will not just make us broke in the near future, it will send life expectancy back to the dark ages.
You don't want to subsidise my kids private school, but I should subsidise your health problems caused by your smoking, over indulging, lifestyle choices?
My kids are out of high school now, you can stop paying, when do I get to stop?
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
3.14159 
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
10 years ago 13% of GDP went on welfare.
It's now running at 8.6% of GDP.
http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2014/01/in-defence-of-australias-welfare-state/
| wrote: | We spend less on welfare (by which I mean cash payments to households) than just about any other advanced economy. Last year we spent 8.6% of our gross domestic product on welfare. That’s less than Canada (9.1%), less than the US (9.7%), New Zealand (9.8%), the UK (12.2%), and every other member of the EU. Even in 2005, well before the financial crisis sent unemployment soaring in most OECD countries, our welfare spending was below all of these countries, including the infamously frugal US…
~
Our problem, to the extent we have one, is that our governments don’t collect enough tax. We’re one of the very lowest taxing advanced economies in the world, with revenues about $30 billion a year lower than they were when John Howard left office…
If we go down that track, Australia will slowly become a very different place. Income support helps to make talk of “equality of opportunity” more than just a hollow charade. It won’t be possible to roll back the welfare state without harming the poor and making social mobility a less likely prospect in the future.: |
Since the election the Gov has given Murdoch nearly $1 billion in tax relief.
Gina Reinhardt an estimated $13 billion with the repeal of the carbon and mining taxes. The diesel rebate accounts for $billions more as does Super assistance to earners on very high incomes.
The problem isn;t welfare payments to the poor, it's welfare payments to the rich that are hurting the economy.
Add to that we will borrow $12 billion to build subs in Japan.
That money was promised to SA and was a linch-pin in the SA economy employing 1000's and using local materials and local suppliers.
The loss of Toyota and Holden (and support industry jobs) is throwing more workers on the welfare scrap-heap and at the same time further reducing tax paid to the commonwealth.
There is no rhyme or reason to this governments actions except their persistent demonising the poor for all the countries ills!
Ban the poor from breeding?
Welcome to the Brave New World of modern Australia!
Yikes! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
if you ever get within cooee of gina, we gunna need a terrorist alert!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I think I do. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
That's quality posting, 3.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | | if you ever get within cooee of gina, we gunna need a terrorist alert! |
She aint gonna need birth control though.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| 1061 wrote: | I actually find myself thinking this is not all that outrageous.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/no-contraception-no-dole/story-fn8v83qk-1227169545069
| Quote: | IF a person’s sole source of income is the taxpayer, the person, as a condition of benefit, must have contraception. No contraception, no benefit.
This is not an affront to single mothers or absent fathers, or struggling parents. Such a measure will undoubtedly affect strugglers, it undoubtedly will affect Aboriginal and Islander people in great proportions, but the idea that someone can have the taxpayer, as of right, fund the choice to have a child is repugnant.
Large families of earlier generations were the result of the combination of absent contraception and the need to have many children, in order that some survive to care for parents in old age.
These conditions do not now apply. Infant mortality is minuscule in all sectors of society, and the taxpayer picks up the tab for aged care.
Therefore, there should be no taxpayer inducement to have children. Potential parents of poor means, poor skills or bad character will choose to have children. So be it. But no one should enter parenthood while on a benefit.
It is better to avoid having children until such time as parents can afford them. No amount of ‘‘intervention’’ after the fact can make up for the strife that many parents bring down on their children.
As commissioner Tim Carmody wrote in the Queensland Child Protection Commission of Inquiry report in 2013, ‘‘some families will never rise to the challenge or have the capacity or commitment needed to take responsibility for the children they bring into the world’’. |
|
This is such backward reasoning. Middle-class parents should receive money to have children, but the people who actually need it shouldn't? 
How does this guy suggest that those children survive, given that their unemployed parents are no longer getting the dole? Take them away and put them in an orphanage? All so you and I can pay a few cents less in taxes every week?
Completely absurd, social Darwinist stuff. It could only be proposed by someone who sees welfare as some merit-oriented privilege, not as an essential safety net to protect the vulnerable. Tony Abbott should give him preselection right away.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
1061
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Why shouldn't Disteny, Holden, Calais and Onedee have a little brother or sister? |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | think positive wrote: | | if you ever get within cooee of gina, we gunna need a terrorist alert! |
She aint gonna need birth control though. |
Hahahahaha
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| 1061 wrote: | | Why shouldn't Disteny, Holden, Calais and Onedee have a little brother or sister? |
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
swoop42 
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The girl sitting in front of me at the cinema dipping her half eaten choc top into her popcorn.
_________________
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
What'sinaname
Joined: 29 May 2010
Location: Living rent free
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| swoop42 wrote: | | The girl sitting in front of me at the cinema dipping her half eaten choc top into her popcorn. |
what a great idea. I am so stupid never to have tried that before.
If salted caramel can be a hit, then salted chock top surely would be.
_________________
Fighting against the objectification of woman. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
