Two Million Australians live Below the Poverty Line (3 Viewers)

[jb_nc]

That's a whole other argument, my argument here are only to disagree with the idea that people have it worse off in Australia relative to other OECD nations. Though, to answer your question... for me personally $249 per week on my own in social housing is enough to live on, it's not a great life but it's definately enough.

Until you reach an age where you require extra medical care (and are maybe forced into a nursing home) which is what the majority of these people would be facing.

 

[Azamakumar]

No I didn't.

Yeah it was me that forgot to mention the success of it, wasn't criticising you.

First you assert these people "should be employed". Where is some evidence to suggest this?

People that exploit the ridiculous system should be forced into work, or at least not have access to the welfare system. I'm not saying disable persons should lose their pension, but people that have no legitimate excuse (ie: people who are too picky/refuse offers point blank) should be kicked out of the system. It's a plain waste of money which could otherwise be spent on healthcare or education.

 

[Enteebee]

Until you reach an age where you require extra medical care (and are maybe forced into a nursing home) which is what the majority of these people would be facing.

I believe we should have enough of a safety net set up so that even when people have no money etc they are looked after, given shelter/food/medical care. As far as I know we have some holes in our net, but it's definately there.

but people that have no legitimate excuse (ie: people who are too picky/refuse offers point blank) should be kicked out of the system.

What? Let them rot in the streets if they're too 'lazy' to work? Surely if all these mythical people whom just never want to work exist they have SOME sort of a problem, right?

 

[Azamakumar]

so if we removed centerlink would that solve the problem ?
considering those on it wont have food and then just die out
(very crude but ...;P)

You have no clue what you are talking about. It's not centrelink that is the problem, it's the entire welfare system.

 

[Azamakumar]

Until you reach an age where you require extra medical care (and are maybe forced into a nursing home) which is what the majority of these people would be facing.

Which is where I have no problem with the government providing; the system should be designed to stop free riders in their tracks.

 

[jb_nc]

People that exploit the ridiculous system should be forced into work, or at least not have access to the welfare system. I'm not saying disable persons should lose their pension, but people that have no legitimate excuse (ie: people who are too picky/refuse offers point blank) should be kicked out of the system. It's a plain waste of money which could otherwise be spent on healthcare or education.

I agree. But ability to work doesn't necessarily translate into employment opportunities.

I believe we should have enough of a safety net set up so that even when people have no money etc they are looked after, given shelter/food/medical care. As far as I know we have some holes in our net, but it's definately there.

I see homeless people in the city all the time.

 

[Azamakumar]

I agree. But ability to work doesn't necessarily translate into employment opportunities.

Which is exactly my point. More funding to address structural unemployment, through education and training, which will in turn pave the way for a better future.

Sounds corny as fuck but I believe it would work. It's the whole teach a man to fish argument; would you rather the problem addressed permanently, or for your day and age

 

[Enteebee]

I see homeless people in the city all the time.

They're the people that fall through the holes. They're far less than 10% of the Australian population.

 

[simplistic]

how are homeless people counted in the census then ??

 

[A High Way Man]

IS there a system to ensure that people curently homeless (as in the city) get help?

 

[jb_nc]

They're the people that fall through the holes. They're far less than 10% of the Australian population.

But for some they're what immediately spring to mind when you mention "poverty".

Australia's social-justice programmes (that are run by governments) are sub-par and if you are actually in need you'd be better served by a private charity.

IS there a system to ensure that people curently homeless (as in the city) get help?

Many people support themselves selling "The Big Issue" which gives them enough to find accommodation et al. I think Wesley Mission does something too night-after-night or most nights.

 

[Enteebee]

I agree, that's what I think of when I think of "poverty" too. I think the way poverty is measured by this survey is a joke.

 

[jb_nc]

I agree, that's what I think of when I think of "poverty" too. I think the way poverty is measured by this survey is a joke.

Yet the people who live on the streets of Sydney probably have better lives than a family living in the slums of Rio de Janeiro and they probably have a richer life than a child in a Central African village.

Where does the shortening of what is "poverty" stop? I'm sure you could increasingly narrow the definition until it becomes rather abject.

 

[A High Way Man]

Many people support themselves selling "The Big Issue" which gives them enough to find accommodation et al. I think Wesley Mission does something too night-after-night or most nights.

Oh yeah, that makes sense.

 

[Enteebee]

Where does the shortening of what is "poverty" stop?

I think it should be done on the basis of objective goals for individual countries. I.e. What most people in that country would consider poverty for their country.

 

[jb_nc]

I think it should be done on the basis of objective goals for individual countries. I.e. What most people in that country would consider poverty for their country.

I think 50% of median income is a fitting definition then.

 

[Enteebee]

No because I think some of the people caught in that definition would definately not be seen as in poverty. Furthermore, I think there's some people who would be seen as worse off than them (perhaps not in poverty) who have huge incomes but also huge debts.

 

[jb_nc]

No because I think some of the people caught in that definition would definately not be seen as in poverty.

You can't exactly get caught in the definition while living the high life. Working a standard job for the award wage will earn you nearly double that. The only way possibly to earn that much is to be on a pension.

Furthermore, I think there's some people who would be seen as worse off than them (perhaps not in poverty) who have huge incomes but also huge debts.

It's completely possible to declare bankruptcy if you have "huge debts".

 

[div123]

It's completely possible to declare bankruptcy if you have "huge debts".

Its also completely possible to get a job if ure on the dole.

 

[chicky_pie]

to the 2 million aussies living below poverty


STOP GAMBLING, START SAVING MONEY