Wealth

[Liverpool]

LOL, childish much?

Caught with your pants down on that one Disco...sorry...but you laid down the challenge ;D

Of course not but you're focusing solely on unemployment which is not the defining factor of many people in need of assistance. Yes they are generally all unemployed but in the vast majority of cases it isn't their inability to find a job that is the root or cause of their problems.

So if it isn't their inability to find a job, then what is the problem?
If they have the ability to find a job then they wouldn't be in "extreme poverty", would they.

Again in some or many cases you may be right. But you have to understand that there are significant amounts of people out there who are so badly off that they can't manage to get onto welfare or that there are people who genuinely can't survive on the welfare they are given.

YES! At last!!!!! :clap
Thats the idea of welfare.....to just give enough to help out.....it isn't meant to be there for people to live a comfortable existence (unless they are invalid, the disabled, or have a medical condition)
If people genuinely can't survive on welfare alone (and who would that be, to be honest?) then hopefully that will persuade them that they need to gain suitable employment for starters.
And who is so bad off that they can't get onto welfare??
I'm starting to get that feeling of an 'excuse' coming on... :-\

Is that right? Care to explain why even though I haven't proposed giving people on the dole more money?

i would assume distributing rich people's money to give to the poor would affect dole recipients in a positive manner (for them)...

I don't want to cut down anyone that's rich or successful. Show me one post where I have said that I do.

For starters:

I don't think forcing people to hand over a percentage of their wealth would necessarily be all that bad. I'd use a sliding scale - 1% for the 90% of 'ordinary' Aussies and up to 10% for the rich buggers depending on just how rich they are. We all benefit from the society we live in so giving back to it as a mandatory action is justifiable IMO.

Handing over the wealth of people who are successful is cutting them down, in my language.

 

[Disco08]

Caught with your pants down on that one Disco...sorry...but you laid down the challenge ;D

Only you could think so Livers. LOL.

So if it isn't their inability to find a job, then what is the problem?
If they have the ability to find a job then they wouldn't be in "extreme poverty", would they.

Of course not. Do you understand that things like child abuse, sexual abuse, etc., etc. exist and can have very damaging long term effects on people?

YES! At last!!!!! clap
Thats the idea of welfare.....to just give enough to help out.....it isn't meant to be there for people to live a comfortable existence.
If people genuinely can't survive on welfare alone (and who would that be, to be honest?) then hopefully that will persuade them that they need to gain suitable employment for starters.

There are many cases I'd imagine, but from what I've seen (among other things) sometimes people can't get government housing so they have no where to live because they can't afford rent for a normal dwelling on the money they're given. Can you see how this might effect a child's life and their future prospects if the situation isn't fairly swiftly rectified?

And who is so bad off that they can't get onto welfare??
I'm starting to get that feeling of an 'excuse' coming on...

Often it's people with mental disease, drug addictions, family problems, etc.

I'm not making this up you know?

i would assume distributing rich people's money to give to the poor would affect dole recipients in a positive manner (for them)...

Of course. You assume, and you get it wrong. How typical.

In most cases the dole is enough for people to survive and get themselves back into work, so what would be the point of distributing any extra resources through this system as additional payments? If I had to make a decision I would do whatever it took to use the resources on those identified as most needing assistance and I certainly wouldn't be able to come up with a plan sitting here posting on a footy forum.

Handing over the wealth of people who are successful is cutting them down, in my language.

That's a smaller differential than the current tax system. You're not against taxes are you? 10% of a billionaire's income leaves a lot left over.

That was for starters; where else have I said anything along those lines?

Now, for someone that's just accused me of conveniently leaving stuff out, you certainly have left a lot of questions hanging and ignored quite a few points I've made don't you think?

 

[Play Centre]

The only thing you would 'value' in this debate is that I agree 100% with you and Disco views.

Mate, i don't know you from the next fella and I couldn't tell you what disco's views are either. All I know is that you come across as being the big tough guy who loves to put the boot into others and I can't believe that you are as coldhearted and as stupid as you seem. Therefore you are bunging it on.

surely.

1eyedtiger and disco and others have managed to post in this debate without coming across as being an offensive, ignorant bully. Why don't you try it?

 

[Liverpool]

Only you could think so Livers. LOL.

Well, why ask for an example if you didn't think I'd find one?
Anyways, laugh it off....

Of course not. Do you understand that things like child abuse, sexual abuse, etc., etc. exist and can have very damaging long term effects on people?

Child/sexual abuse is not an excuse for someone to remain on unemployment benefits.
Instead of staying at home wallowing and receiving handouts, it would be more of a benefit to the victim to get into the workforce...not only for a livelihood point of view (pay bills, buy decent food, etc) but to boost their self-esteem.
It is this type of attitude that we see today when people get injured at work....and everything is done to encourage them back into the workforce, even if it light duties, it is just to keep them included in what is happening at work and to give them that social contact with others.
More welfare isn't the answer.

There are many cases I'd imagine, but from what I've seen (among other things) sometimes people can't get government housing so they have no where to live because they can't afford rent for a normal dwelling on the money they're given. Can you see how this might effect a child's life and their future prospects if the situation isn't fairly swiftly rectified?

Of course...but I would expect any decent parent to find a job so their child isn't in such a difficult situation to begin with.
And as a last resort:

http://www.inverell-online.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4&Itemid=12

There are already plenty of temporary options Disco.

Often it's people with mental disease, drug addictions, family problems, etc.

I didn't know people with mental disease were discriminated against when it came to receiving welfare.
I was under the impression that all people who were unemployed were entitled to welfare benefits of some kind...whether it be the dole or a specific pension dedicated to that person's illness or disability or age.

As for drug addicts....well, thats an easy one....welfare comes in = welfare goes out for drugs.
Again, I have no sympathy for these people....as Play Centre said: We are responsible for ourselves
Drug addicts need to show more responsibility for their own actions.

And family problems.....well, unless they already have enough in the bank and are not entitled to welfare....then I can't see how family problems can stop someone receiving some type of benefit.

In most cases the dole is enough for people to survive and get themselves back into work, so what would be the point of distributing any extra resources through this system as additional payments? If I had to make a decision I would do whatever it took to use the resources on those identified as most needing assistance and I certainly wouldn't be able to come up with a plan sitting here posting on a footy forum.

Totally agree with your first sentence.
So thats the dole recipients out of the equation....

Assisting the needy....hmmm...great idea in theory and full credit to you for you thinking in this way.
However, the more you assist the 'needy', the more the group called the 'needy' grows until you have a population of recipients.

I think PlayCentre called me "cold-hearted".....no, I'm not...but I am certainly not the one to bow to the fad of the day.

We as a society all want the 'needy' to improve their lot in life....I think thats something we all agree on.....but we certainly disagree on how this is to be done.
I am more for these people accepting some kind of welfare but I want them to feel that they are not comfortable and that they get persuaded to take matters into their own hands to improve their life.
It can be done and if I trawled the internet, I could find you hundreds of examples of businessmen/politicians/lawyers/doctors, etc that came from extremely dour beginnings to being a success.

Like I said earlier.....I'm not interested in how someone came to be poor or living on the street....I'm more interested in what are they going to do about it.

 

[Liverpool]

Mate, i don't know you from the next fella and I couldn't tell you what disco's views are either. All I know is that you come across as being the big tough guy who loves to put the boot into others and I can't believe that you are as coldhearted and as stupid as you seem. Therefore you are bunging it on.
surely.
1eyedtiger and disco and others have managed to post in this debate without coming across as being an offensive, ignorant bully. Why don't you try it?

Ignorant, offensive....now cold-hearted, stupid, and a bully. :
And what names have I called anyone here on this thread???

Play Centre,
You simply don't like my opinion so you resort to the old chestnut of name-calling.
Its pathetic.

Secondly, how is it "putting the boot in" when it is simply my opinion that the so-called "extreme poverty" sufferers (that shouldn't exist to begin with) should not receive money from the rich and successful via a "personal wealth threshold"?
Thats my opinion and I stand by it.
If thats putting the boots in, then so be it.

 

[Disco08]

Well, why ask for an example if you didn't think I'd find one?
Anyways, laugh it off....

Because you said I'd made a habit out of it, when clearly I hadn't.

Child/sexual abuse is not an excuse for someone to remain on unemployment benefits.

You know this how? Unless you've been through it, how can you possibly know what long term effects such abuse has on people?

Things like this lead to depression, anxiety and other mental problems. This can stem to drug abuse, alcoholism and other afflictions. It's well documented Livers. Again, I'm not making it up. This is reality.

Instead of staying at home wallowing and receiving handouts, it would be more of a benefit to the victim to get into the workforce...not only for a livelihood point of view (pay bills, buy decent food, etc) but to boost their self-esteem.

You're right, and in most cases this is what happens. Unfortunately there are cases where the effects cause so much damage that the person's life can be all but destroyed before they receive any help. Do you know the figures on youth suicide? Where do you think these cases stem from? Don't you think something should be done about it?

Of course...but I would expect any decent parent to find a job so their child isn't in such a difficult situation to begin with.

It's not that simple Livers. People can have trouble finding employment for a number of reasons which aren't their fault. Basically what you're saying is anyone that lets themselves fall into this position is not a decent parent, right? I can tell you you wouldn't want to say this to the face of someone who's had it happen to them through no fault of their own.

I didn't know people with mental disease were discriminated against when it came to receiving welfare.
I was under the impression that all people who were unemployed were entitled to welfare benefits of some kind...whether it be the dole or a specific pension dedicated to that person's illness or disability or age.

As for drug addicts....well, thats an easy one....welfare comes in = welfare goes out for drugs.
Again, I have no sympathy for these people....as Play Centre said: We are responsible for ourselves
Drug addicts need to show more responsibility for their own actions.

And family problems.....well, unless they already have enough in the bank and are not entitled to welfare....then I can't see how family problems can stop someone receiving some type of benefit.

You're not understanding. These problems can in some cases become so acute that the person isn't able to think well enough to get themselves into welfare.

It's very easy to sit there high and mighty, but unless you've been through these situations you really have no idea.

Totally agree with your first sentence.
So thats the dole recipients out of the equation....

Assisting the needy....hmmm...great idea in theory and full credit to you for you thinking in this way.
However, the more you assist the 'needy', the more the group called the 'needy' grows until you have a population of recipients.

Rubbish. There is absolutely no reason this needs to be the case. Any halfway efficient system would ensure that.

I am more for these people accepting some kind of welfare but I want them to feel that they are not comfortable and that they get persuaded to take matters into their own hands to improve their life.
It can be done and if I trawled the internet, I could find you hundreds of examples of businessmen/politicians/lawyers/doctors, etc that came from extremely dour beginnings to being a success.

I'm sure you could, and that's great. It doesn't mean it's possible for everyone to achive that type of turnaround on their own though. There are varying degrees of need and varying degrees of human willpower. Some people have simply been through so much much of their strength has beent aken away from them. Others have less strength to begin with. Do these people deserve less help because of that?

 

[Liverpool]

You know this how? Unless you've been through it, how can you possibly know what long term effects such abuse has on people?

Come off it Disco....just because someone is abused doesn't mean that they are exempt from gaining employment or can use that as an excuse.

Things like this lead to depression, anxiety and other mental problems. This can stem to drug abuse, alcoholism and other afflictions. It's well documented Livers. Again, I'm not making it up. This is reality.

I know it is reality.
However, it is still up to the individual as to the course their life takes as well.
I guess it depends if they want to remain a victim or not.

You're right, and in most cases this is what happens. Unfortunately there are cases where the effects cause so much damage that the person's life can be all but destroyed before they receive any help. Do you know the figures on youth suicide? Where do you think these cases stem from? Don't you think something should be done about it?

If there was one specific reason for teens committing suicide, then i would say yes, there is something that could be done about it.....but its not...it comes down to an individual's choice.
For example, there have been instances of teens committing suicide because someone called them names on a forum (I'm not joking here!) yet others, like myself, would never contemplate such a thing (even though I'm not a teen anyymore).
There are examples of teens committing suicide from pressures at home about grades at school.....breaking up with a boyfriend/girlfriend...bullying at school....the list goes on.....yet for each one of these teens experiencing these barriers and ending their life, there are hundreds of teens out there who face similar barriers every day and move on in their life.

It's not that simple Livers. People can have trouble finding employment for a number of reasons which aren't their fault. Basically what you're saying is anyone that lets themselves fall into this position is not a decent parent, right? I can tell you you wouldn't want to say this to the face of someone who's had it happen to them through no fault of their own.

I agree that a parent today could get laid off from work which isn't their fault.....but if they had a child, and were a responsible parent, then I am sure they would be doing everything they could starting the following day to try and get some type of employment.
In the meantime there are agencies and charities that provide emergency accommodation and funding which I provided a link to in my last post.

You're not understanding. These problems can in some cases become so acute that the person isn't able to think well enough to get themselves into welfare.
It's very easy to sit there high and mighty, but unless you've been through these situations you really have no idea.

If their problem is so acute that they cannot get welfare because of their mental state, then they simply shouldn't be allowed out on the streets.
If they cannot look after themselves and don't have a lucid enough mind to make informed decisions about their own welfare then they should be in permanent care.

Rubbish. There is absolutely no reason this needs to be the case. Any halfway efficient system would ensure that.

Its not rubbish at all.
You only need to look at the expansion of welfare by the number of different pensions as well as the numerous types of benefits afforded to a whole range of recipients compared to the handful that existed, say 20 years ago.
The needy groups have grown over time and with that comes more funding into social welfare from the Government.

I'm sure you could, and that's great. It doesn't mean it's possible for everyone to achive that type of turnaround on their own though. There are varying degrees of need and varying degrees of human willpower. Some people have simply been through so much much of their strength has beent aken away from them. Others have less strength to begin with. Do these people deserve less help because of that?

They deserve the same help as anybody else in the same position.
No more, no less.
And then it comes down to the individual....do they want to get on with their life as we are only on this planet for a nanosecond compared to the millions of years this planet has existed? or do they want to finish their nanosecond as a victim?
Thats the decision these people face....and it may sound harsh, but that is also the reality of it.

 

[Disco08]

Livers, it's obvious you have no interest in understanding. Despite having little or no knowledge on some of these things you have a set view of how people should behave and you can't deviate from it, rather you just sit there in your cushy seat and judge them.

That's fine, good luck to you, but there's really no point rehashing these points over and over.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

That's fine, good luck to you, but there's really no point rehashing these points over and over.

You expect any less from the scouser? His worldview is clearly limited to his own experience and the ability to empathise appears to be completely outside of his range. It doesn't matter how many times you point out the flaws in his arguments...he will respond 1000-fold and defeat you through volume over substance. ;D

I sometimes think that PC is right and that he is some sort of neo-con computer program.

 

[Tiger74]

Livers, it's obvious you have no interest in understanding. Despite having little or no knowledge on some of these things you have a set view of how people should behave and you can't deviate from it, rather you just sit there in your cushy seat and judge them.

That's fine, good luck to you, but there's really no point rehashing these points over and over.

I'd ease off on him Disco. When it appears Liverpool's greatest suffering in life was not being allowed to bring a bottle of bundy onto a plane, its understandably a bit hard for him to appreciate what genuine suffering is.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I'd ease off on him Disco. When it appears Liverpool's greatest suffering in life was not being allowed to bring a bottle of bundy onto a plane, its understandably a bit hard for him to appreciate what genuine suffering is.

But it was Bundy after all. Don't belittle his pain T74.

 

[dukeos]

Its not acceptable but punishing the rich to give to them isn't the answer.
Why are children in poverty?
Mainly due to ill-disciplined and poor parenting.....so do you really want more money going to people like that?
Put it this way....where I work I drive past a Centrelink and a couple of fast-food outlets and a bottle shop.
It isn't uncommon for me to see on specific days a mother drinking a can of Jim Beam at lunchtime while the kid in the stroller is munching on fried chicken and chips.
More money to these people isn't going to change their attitude to life.....all it does is give them more disposable income to spend on sh!t.

Livers, are you fair dinkum. So the Sudanese farmer whos lost his house to warlords and cant afford to scratch his arse can all be brought back to poor parenting?

Im not talking about the welfare recipient in Montrose who doesnt get out of bed, giving him an extra TV. Im talking about giving to those who have NOTHING.

 

[Liverpool]

Livers, it's obvious you have no interest in understanding. Despite having little or no knowledge on some of these things you have a set view of how people should behave and you can't deviate from it, rather you just sit there in your cushy seat and judge them.
That's fine, good luck to you, but there's really no point rehashing these points over and over.

You expect any less from the scouser? His worldview is clearly limited to his own experience and the ability to empathise appears to be completely outside of his range. It doesn't matter how many times you point out the flaws in his arguments..

Yes, you are all so smart with your supreme and flawless views. :

Disco,
Let me be honest with you here.......on this thread and a couple of other threads.....we have one thing in common and that is that we want the best for people.
Where we disagree is the way we go about it.
Thats all.

Livers, are you fair dinkum. So the Sudanese farmer whos lost his house to warlords and cant afford to scratch his arse can all be brought back to poor parenting?

Are YOU fair dinkum?
We're propping up Sudanese farmers now?
Don't worry about him Dukeos.....he'll be on the next leaky boat here before you can click your fingers anyway...the Chairman will let him in... :hihi

 

[Disco08]

All good Livers.

 

[Liverpool]

I'd ease off on him Disco. When it appears Liverpool's greatest suffering in life was not being allowed to bring a bottle of bundy onto a plane, its understandably a bit hard for him to appreciate what genuine suffering is.

Dealing with you lot is another case of "genuine suffering" (hence the bottle of Bundy that is required) :hihi

 

[AngryAnt]

:hihi

 

[Play Centre]

Dukeos had a valid point, but I guess the point about choice is also valid. The grey area seems to be where responsiblity and choice collide.

If I had a choice I would choose to live in a community where people acted responsibly and looked out for each other. When our neighbours need help, or when I need help, there is someone there to do what they can.

People can choose to be selfish and narrow-minded, but in the end that's their loss.

 

[Liverpool]

If I had a choice I would choose to live in a community where people acted responsibly and looked out for each other. When our neighbours need help, or when I need help, there is someone there to do what they can.

That would be this place, Play Centre:

 

[RemoteTiger]

Interesting reading the threads on here.

I have the good fortune of having friends who are self-made multi-millionaires. There are two common threads that link them together -

1. They worked long hours and worked cleverly (if you call that hard work then OK but I don't - they worked clever not hard)
2. They all agree that they got individual lucky breaks during their early days of working and were then clever enough to build on those breaks.

Because of these ethics and lucky breaks they all have an enormous ability to empathise - they know that guys they went through school and uni with did not have the right aptitude or the lucky breaks but they understand that those guys have made the best of their abilities and life so far.

They all feel for those that are stricken by health issues and/or disabled and work with health research organisations to find cures or simply a better way of life for those people.

As one said to me at a funeral of a friend who died whilst strickened by deep depression - "there but for the grace of God go I". Many weeks later over a game of golf I asked him his reasons for saying that - he confided in me that he too gets very depressed about the life he left as a kid and the life he leads now - and how he can help others achieve in life. There are so many that bust a gut to achieve and make a better life for themselves and their kids but never get that lucky break.

The tiered structure of our society is wrong in that it is based on wealth. It should be based on what we as individuals do to make all our lives better.

That man is my brother - he is retired now - and is a Chairman of the Board for a Health Research Organisation - On the Board of the Creating Local Jobs Committee - On the Board of the Local AFL Competition - Treasurer of a Local Industries Association - all of which are honary positions (doesn't get paid for the time he gives them). He mentors senior executives in both Public and Private companies and has been asked on many occasions to join various company boards. (Not bad for a Public School Boy whose parents and he paid his way through his first year of uni). All because he worked clever got the breaks and now wants to give those who are younger and are willing to try to work clever a lucky break.

He has taught his younger brother - who myself could be classified as wealthy (many assets in my name but the bank really owns them) -

"that as a society we are one - if society breaks down we all flounder"

Dukeos - please don't knock the wealthy - they too are human and they give and do so much for our society and various communities for which they do not want to be known - they do not want the praise - their anonymous generosity in truth keeps our society moving towards the humanitarian society we would like to be.

 

[dukeos]

"that as a society we are one - if society breaks down we all flounder"

Dukeos - please don't knock the wealthy - they too are human and they give and do so much for our society and various communities for which they do not want to be known - they do not want the praise - their anonymous generosity in truth keeps our society moving towards the humanitarian society we would like to be.

Hi Remote,

You and your brother sound like fantastic people, with a great outlook on life.

I too, have had some lucky breaks, though maybe not the work ethic of your brother, but i'm still fairly young

Im not knocking the wealthy though, just had a thought that if the billionaires had just 1 billion dollars in the bank, gave the rest away,

how much money they would free up for the poor. Not the bloke on the couch watching TV with no job, he is probably very wealthy compared

to those who have nothing, nothing and nothing. I think Bill Gates is in the throws of giving away a fair chunk.