$900 coming your way, courtesy of your children

Fents · Post by **Fents** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 8:32 am

i'll drop a bait out...

so these long term unemployed dont pay PAYG tax's....why should they get any? and everyone knows that this is not free money...it will be paid back over time with intrest probably by us or by our kids. so giving the unemployed money when they dont pay tax and probably wont, i feel a bit jibbed.

no denying they need money a buttload more than i/we do in any case. is that what it comes down to?

nic · Post by **nic** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 8:46 am

fucking unemployed should get jobs - der.

fuck em, the cunts. out with immigrants as well, also AUSTRALIAN TAXI DRIVERS FOR AUSTRALIAN TAXIS - GET HOME SAFE AT NIGHT.

lol The Age had a link to a 'Fuck you Malcolm Turnbull, give me my $950' group but have EDITED teh article LOL

i love how malcolm is the badman now, he cant come out of this clean he needs to stfu and close his mouth, taking care not to bite down on that silver spoon with his gold teeth. the cunt.

about time we get somethign tangible from the govt. frankly im sick of all this bullshit intangible magical social infrastructure shit we get fed while the fatcats eat cake at the top.

fuck em all. the cunts.

same o · Post by **same o** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 8:59 am

fucken lol

Lizkins · Post by **Lizkins** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 9:27 am

Fents wrote:i'll drop a bait out...

so these long term unemployed dont pay PAYG tax's....why should they get any? and everyone knows that this is not free money...it will be paid back over time with intrest probably by us or by our kids. so giving the unemployed money when they dont pay tax and probably wont, i feel a bit jibbed.

no denying they need money a buttload more than i/we do in any case. is that what it comes down to?

agree. i know its circumstantial but there are some long term unemployed people out there cos they won't take any job, because they are "below them". fuck that, if i got sacked today and couldn't get a job in the same field straight away i would go back to working at Coles or something til i could, no choice, bills must be paid

same o · Post by **same o** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 9:31 am

yeah fucken homeless..

should make a village on southern cross station roof for em to live

DBoy · Post by **DBoy** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 9:33 am

There are also a huge number of people in jobs who spend all day on the internet and greatly affect the productivity of our economy!! Should all employed people miss out because a minorty are jibbing the system?

Most long term unemployed people are that way because society has failed them, not because they have failed society. Could go on and on, but I'm effecting my productivity...

ghetto kitty · Post by **ghetto kitty** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 9:37 am

Lizkins wrote: agree. i know its circumstantial but there are some long term unemployed people out there cos they won't take any job, because they are "below them". fuck that, if i got sacked today and couldn't get a job in the same field straight away i would go back to working at Coles or something til i could, no choice, bills must be paid

i think you'd find that attitude was a definate minority among unemployed.

its not actually that easy getting even a job at coles right now, especially if you have mental issues, a disability, or are an ethnic group that gets quietly discriminated against.

and word dboy.

deviant · Post by **deviant** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 9:41 am

Lizkins wrote:
Fents wrote:i'll drop a bait out...

so these long term unemployed dont pay PAYG tax's....why should they get any? and everyone knows that this is not free money...it will be paid back over time with intrest probably by us or by our kids. so giving the unemployed money when they dont pay tax and probably wont, i feel a bit jibbed.

no denying they need money a buttload more than i/we do in any case. is that what it comes down to?

agree. i know its circumstantial but there are some long term unemployed people out there cos they won't take any job, because they are "below them". fuck that, if i got sacked today and couldn't get a job in the same field straight away i would go back to working at Coles or something til i could, no choice, bills must be paid

so, you are a slave?

Lizkins · Post by **Lizkins** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 9:46 am

ghetto kitty wrote:
Lizkins wrote: agree. i know its circumstantial but there are some long term unemployed people out there cos they won't take any job, because they are "below them". fuck that, if i got sacked today and couldn't get a job in the same field straight away i would go back to working at Coles or something til i could, no choice, bills must be paid

i think you'd find that attitude was a definate minority among unemployed.

its not actually that easy getting even a job at coles right now, especially if you have mental issues, a disability, or are an ethnic group that gets quietly discriminated against.

and word dboy.

back at ya

read what i said before responding, i said its circumstantial, i.e. people with disabilities etc

Fents · Post by **Fents** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 9:47 am

DBoy wrote:There are also a huge number of people in jobs who spend all day on the internet and greatly affect the productivity of our economy!! Should all employed people miss out because a minorty are jibbing the system?

hahaha touche' d.

Direkt · Post by **Direkt** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:22 am

I seriously think this payment should be more means tested.

I don't see it fair that someone on $80K gets the same payment as someone on $35K.

You could have a combined household income of $160,000pa and still get a bonus of just under $2K... I don't think that's necessary for a childless couple with that income.

FoundationStepper · Post by **FoundationStepper** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:24 am

its not necessary and its not about fairness. its about discretionary splurge

aroes · Post by **aroes** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:29 am

I reckon payments to long term unemployed should be done on a case by case basis. A logistical nightmare I know, but here's why......I live and work right smack in the middle of what is probably Melbourne's lowest socio economic area, and I can GUARANTEE you that the vast majority of long term unemployed people around here WILL NOT use the money to stimulate the economy. They will use it to stimulate the black market
I realise there is the argument that these people have mental disabilities/society has failed them etc etc, but if you get down to street level and deal with these people every day, you will soon come to know that for these people, a quick cash injection does not equate to supermarket shopping/clothes for the kids/new furniture
Long term unemployed are that way coz they are lazy fucks (generally, not across the board).....if they wanted to work, they would be working
Harsh I know, but in my opinion, very true

same o · Post by **same o** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:32 am

as tc would say

"WHERE'S MY MONEY"

witty_pseudonym · Post by **witty_pseudonym** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:34 am

^ that pops into my head every time i open this thread.

almax · Post by **almax** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:35 am

FoundationStepper wrote:its not necessary and its not about fairness. its about discretionary splurge

exactly, this is not for people who have less money nor more money as all areas of the economy would need stimulating.
In general, someone on $35k would spend the $950 completely differently to someone on $80k.

same o · Post by **same o** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:42 am

witty_pseudonym wrote:^ that pops into my head every time i open this thread.

ahh hello, err, about the money

money?

err i'm not going to be able to get it to you, it's in a secondary holding account

holding account?

err with record sales and the industry

WHERE'S MY MONEY

hahah

goes sumfin along those lines

witty_pseudonym · Post by **witty_pseudonym** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:45 am

i just like the tune.

DBoy · Post by **DBoy** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:00 pm

-aroes- wrote:I reckon payments to long term unemployed should be done on a case by case basis. A logistical nightmare I know, but here's why......I live and work right smack in the middle of what is probably Melbourne's lowest socio economic area, and I can GUARANTEE you that the vast majority of long term unemployed people around here WILL NOT use the money to stimulate the economy. They will use it to stimulate the black market
I realise there is the argument that these people have mental disabilities/society has failed them etc etc, but if you get down to street level and deal with these people every day, you will soon come to know that for these people, a quick cash injection does not equate to supermarket shopping/clothes for the kids/new furniture
Long term unemployed are that way coz they are lazy fucks (generally, not across the board).....if they wanted to work, they would be working
Harsh I know, but in my opinion, very true

Yeah, we do work with them every day and I disagree (to a degree) It is undeniable that some people on benifits etc are lazy but again the argument that most of it would go into the black market is no more or less true than for those who are working. I can think of a few people who might stock up on black market items with the payment, and they arnt long term unemployed.

I can think of a bunch of long term unemployed people who have been one payment away from being homeless for most of their lives and this payment would mean so much to them that most of us can not even imagine. And none of these people would spend the money of black market items.

FoundationStepper · Post by **FoundationStepper** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:02 pm

Its not feasible to have case by case payments. imagine the admin cost. better to lose money by making a broad definition of eligilibility then micro managing worthiness for a payment

deviant · Post by **deviant** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:08 pm

Watch the posted video on YouTube.

aroes · Post by **aroes** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:27 pm

DBoy wrote:it is undeniable that some people on benifits etc are lazy but again the argument that most of it would go into the black market is no more or less true than for those who are working. I can think of a few people who might stock up on black market items with the payment, and they arnt long term unemployed.

I can think of a bunch of long term unemployed people who have been one payment away from being homeless for most of their lives and this payment would mean so much to them that most of us can not even imagine. And none of these people would spend the money of black market items.

good point

Its not feasible to have case by case payments. imagine the admin cost. better to lose money by making a broad definition of eligilibility then micro managing worthiness for a payment

also a good point

How about monitoring the spending of the money??
Is this even possible???

DBoy · Post by **DBoy** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:21 pm

Lots of people are state trustees and have to get invoices for most of their goods and services and have it paid directly out of trustee acounts. Again, a costly process, usually court ordered as a part of a community order and re-habilitiation process. There are some that are just goners, we all know that.

Interesting take on it was a letter I read about a miner in WA who was pissed off that he had to take a urine test to keep his job. And he pays taxes. And those taxes go to lots of things, including the unemployed. And his question was why the hell didnt people have to take urine tests to get the benifits, he had to to get his pay which pays the benifits....

Actually not a bad point...

DBoy · Post by **DBoy** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:22 pm

although then they will just be robbing more shit for the money...

aroes · Post by **aroes** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:50 pm

yeah fuck it, i had my rant, now i just want my $950

Polecat · Post by **Polecat** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 5:19 pm

Direkt wrote:I seriously think this payment should be more means tested.

hahahah!!

Is the first home buyers grant means tested? No.
was the baby bonus means tested originally? No.

How can you buy as many votes if you means test stuff?!

The $950 is a bloody cash handout. if you're going to give it to people to spend to help the economy why not give it to those who are on low incomes or unemployed or students. can't these people spend $50 as well as you or I?

I am praying for Bob Brown to save us and reign in Spendathon K Rudd

Polecat · Post by **Polecat** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 5:23 pm

DBoy wrote:Lots of people are state trustees and have to get invoices for most of their goods and services and have it paid directly out of trustee acounts. Again, a costly process, usually court ordered as a part of a community order and re-habilitiation process. There are some that are just goners, we all know that.

Interesting take on it was a letter I read about a miner in WA who was pissed off that he had to take a urine test to keep his job. And he pays taxes. And those taxes go to lots of things, including the unemployed. And his question was why the hell didnt people have to take urine tests to get the benifits, he had to to get his pay which pays the benifits....

Actually not a bad point...

Actually it is a crap point. He has to take a urine test because being a miner he is working in a industry chock full of things that can kill you, like those massive trucks they drive or going down a bloody deep hole in the ground to blow shit up. So if you are on drugs your ability to do your job safely and not to harm others will be diminished. Thus the need for a drug test. That miner pisses every day to let the waste fluids out of his body. How hard was it for him to do one extra piss?

deviant · Post by **deviant** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 5:27 pm

cut it to $500 and give it to everyone

only fair

FoundationStepper · Post by **FoundationStepper** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:32 pm

Polecat wrote:I am praying for Bob Brown to save us and reign in Spendathon K Rudd

compromise with bob may lead to even less productive ways to waste money

quick · Post by **quick** » Sat Feb 07, 2009 1:29 am

deviant wrote:cut it to $500 and give it to everyone

only fair

nic · Post by **nic** » Sat Feb 07, 2009 2:07 am

not for over 100k tho surely?

FoundationStepper · Post by **FoundationStepper** » Sat Feb 07, 2009 8:32 am

deviant wrote:cut it to $500 and give it to everyone

only fair

give me $500 and ill put it into savings or repayments

give me $1000 and ill put the first bit away and feel free to spend the rest.

im sure this psychology is a part of the figure chosen

obliveus · Post by **obliveus** » Sat Feb 07, 2009 10:10 am

Actually, we used the last payment they sent to knock out a credit card, then closed it. If we do get the $950, which is a maybe for us, we'd do the same thing with our last remaining credit card. I apologize for not stimulating the economy, unless one of you economically minded people can tell me this type of spending is doing just that.

I still have this feeling it's not going to happen this time round....

almax · Post by **almax** » Sat Feb 07, 2009 10:38 am

by knocking out your credit card it will free up more of your earning in the near future, so instead of paying off the credit card $50 per week, you will have an extra $50 that you can spend on that midget pron you so dearly love. So not only will you stimulate the economy....

apophenian · Post by **apophenian** » Sat Feb 07, 2009 10:41 am

You'll provide employment for horny midgets, an often neglected part of the economy...

FoundationStepper · Post by **FoundationStepper** » Sat Feb 07, 2009 2:11 pm

Ob, this is one of the bigger areas of debate around the payments, as people will do the aort of thing you have - its not like the payments yeild a high 'payback' no average - perhaps 70% or even less ive read, over 3-6months. so its a questionable measure

im thinking more and more that it feels the 'non-cash' part of the money isn't going on meausres that will increase long term productivity. but i imagine this is against the tension that $ needs to be spent now and that long term productive things like rail lines aren't necessarily ready, just waiting on $, unlike schools

deviant · Post by **deviant** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 12:40 am

FoundationStepper wrote:
deviant wrote:cut it to $500 and give it to everyone

only fair
give me $500 and ill put it into savings or repayments

give me $1000 and ill put the first bit away and feel free to spend the rest.

im sure this psychology is a part of the figure chosen

yeah, but what about the peeps that currently wont be getting it? surely they would spend their $500 pretty much instantly.

I might give my $950 to a homeless person.

menace · Post by **menace** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 3:44 am

scrap the $950

should just give it all 2 the people . effect by the fire tbh .....money well spend

SONUS · Post by **SONUS** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:15 am

Oh Kev stimulate me.....

We will end up paying it back, some how, some way,

its 2009 FFS you think you get $950 for nothing?

I'm with Turnbull on this one...give us some tax cuts, PLEASE>>>>>>

SONUS · Post by **SONUS** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:19 am

Direkt wrote:The $12.7 billion cash payments will include one-off bonus payments of $950 each for low- and middle-income households and individuals through five bonuses to be paid in the next few weeks through either the Australian Tax Office or Centrelink.

It means 8.7 million workers earning $100,000 or less will receive a lump sum payment of $950 each from April.

About 1.5 million single-income families will also receive the payment, provided they receive Family Tax Benefit Part B, in the fortnight beginning March 11.

Farmers will also receive a $950 bonus payment, as will families eligible for FTB Part A who have a child at school. They will receive an immediate payment of $950 this week.

The government will also provide a one-off $950 training and learning bonus for eligible students and people outside of the workforce returning to study to help with the costs of education and training.

The package, which is virtually a mini-budget in all but name, is the second major economic stimulus package announced by the government since the $10.4 billion economic security strategy released in October.

$88.7 billion and counting

It takes the total amount spent by the government on stimulating the economy since September to $88.7 billion, including bank deposit guarantees, the car industry package, as well as investment in residential-backed mortgage securities, local government, infrastructure projects, and on the states through the Council of Australian Governments (COAG).

The statement said while the nation was in a better position than most other countries to weather the global recession, Australia could no longer ''resist the pull of global economic forces''.

The infrastructure spending in this package involves a major roll-out of $890 million to fix accident black spots, install rail boom gates, repair regional roads and build community infrastructure such as libraries, town halls, community centres and sport centres.

Schools around Australia will benefit from $14.7 billion over three years to construct school halls, libraries, indoor sports facilities and performing arts centres.

The package includes funds of between $250,000 and $3 million for primary schools for capital expenditure projects and $1 billion for the construction of science and language laboratories in secondary schools, while all schools will be able to apply for extra funding of between $50,000 and $200,000 for minor maintenance and infrastructure.

SOURCE: http://business.theage.com.au/business/ ... tml?page=2

I'd be interested to hear the minimum salary/wage you have to earn to get the $$$ in the 1st place, lots of students ect. will miss out but they think they will get cash....

Why can't we just fuck government off? Look around the world, and give me some positive stories about government....

we even got dupped by Kev, saying sorry to Abo's and now he is being a ponce,

the whole system is fucked.....

give me anarchy, please....

Polecat · Post by **Polecat** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:54 am

I knew it... the handout is just a vote buying exercise.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/02/ ... ntentSwap1

FoundationStepper · Post by **FoundationStepper** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 10:25 am

It could be. it could also be misguided economics...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 79,00.html

Direkt · Post by **Direkt** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:30 pm

SONUS wrote:give me anarchy, please....

You cannot be serious?

aroes · Post by **aroes** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:35 pm

SONUS wrote:
we even got dupped by Kev, saying sorry to Abo's and now he is being a ponce,

the whole system is fucked.....

give me anarchy, please....

Polecat · Post by **Polecat** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:36 pm

Stimulus package stalled on the table! Xenophon stops it passing.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/xenop ... -85lu.html

Get ups latest campaign is to see unemployed people be included in the package. I'd hate to scrimp a life on $225 a week, so I got letter writing this afternoon.

http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/Econom ... ess&id=496
http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/Econom ... ess&id=508

deviant · Post by **deviant** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:50 pm

reduced to $900

Post by **system** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 6:09 pm

surprise, surprise: born again conservative pm giving money away for babies!

yenks · Post by **yenks** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 6:24 pm

omgs. hurry up already. I need to stimulate my economies.

Hardy · Post by **Hardy** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 6:44 pm

SONUS wrote:
Why can't we just fuck government off? Look around the world, and give me some positive stories about government....

we even got dupped by Kev, saying sorry to Abo's and now he is being a ponce,

the whole system is fucked.....

give me anarchy, please....

Righty-o.

nic · Post by **nic** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:06 pm

900 now?

hardly 950 is it?

we have been scammed