If Australia is not a Third World country, what is it?

Gillard’s mantra: Australia is a lucky country.

The truth is, poverty is quite common among Australia's underclass.

But Julia Gillard cares little about this as her recent charade into the Western Suburbs of Sydney to "meet the people" was limited to trendy supporters of no political influence, polls later determined.

An alarming report from the Salvation Army claims a huge number of their “customers” can no longer afford even one substantial meal each day and about half of those often skip meals in favour of their children.

Over 50 per cent of people surveyed said their financial situation has worsened in the last 12 months. More than 30 percent those had to forgo prescription medicine and about 93 percent have less than $500 in the bank

During the past 12 months the Salvation Army served over a million Australians, with 230,000 provided with emergency relief and more than 100,000 of those needed food.

"Every time the price of food and utilities goes up these people fall deeper into a prison of poverty. Sadly, none of these stats go backwards." Said a spokesperson.

The increase in those who have crossed the threshold into poverty includes a large number of single parents, who bore the brunt of the federal government's changes to welfare payments this year.

The changes resulted in single parents being moved off the Single Parent Payment and on to Newstart when their youngest child turns eight, effectively taking $130 a fortnight out of their pockets. The Salvation Army claims.

Is anyone better off under this Labor government?

GC.Ed.@L.

Comments

[joseph sarasola]

1.

everybody is worse off under the gillard communist party regime, the press,freedom of speech,workers,single parents,small business,big business,pensioners,etc,except labor politicians who granted themselves a hefty payrise ahead of their new taxes imposed on the plebs....roll on september

[David Pierce]

2.

My son asked us for some non-perishable foods to donate as part of his school's support for a food distribution charity. Assuming that it was export to some third world country in Africa, I was surprised when he told me it was for starving families in North Queensland... 80 cents in the tax dollar goes of welfare, how much of that 80 cents lands on a needy family's plate? 20%, 30%, 60%, probably not a lot after the bureaucracy has its slice... Ms Gillard, where is my return on investment in you? I'm not seeing it.

[AlterEgo]

3.

So, is the answer to raise benefits?

Anyone in favour of that?

What will a LNP government do?

[VCadahia]

4.

Sadly, the LNP won't do anything either. The poverty and homelessness problem has been growing for many years. This is because of a lack of appropriate welfare policies for at least a couple of decades. First: lack of investment in affordable housing,second: Government stopped capping rents, third: 30% policy stops people on low incomes renting because 30% of their incomes is usually under cheapest rent available. 4th: rego & electricity hikes not been controlled by govt (both main parties). 5th: People on Newstart/Youth Allowance are not allowed to move to areas of cheaper accommodation because those areas are always associated with higher unemployment. 6th: Too much underemployment/unemployment, no jobs are being created. Which govt is going to do something abouth these problems?

[Allan]

5.

Since taking office in 2007 the Labor government has increased foreign aid by a massive 50 per cent. 2012/13 will see $5.2 billion of borrowed money leaving our shores to supposedly assist developing nations. This government intends to expand that to in excess of $7 billion by 2015. Why? So that their so-called 'aide agencies' can waste more on administration and third world warlords can spend even more on arms?

Our Foreign Aid, or Development Assistance Programme as they like to call it, is in line with the United Nations Agenda 21 which calls for redistribution of wealth from the more well off countries to the so-called 3rd world countries. Our government is also willing, in line with that United Nations policy, to send our manufacturing and services industries off-shore and thus reducing employment prospects here in Australia.

The government is quick to pull back on 'Development Assistance' to try to plug the big black hole in their budget, but they are not so willing to hold back funding to combat the problems/reasons for poverty and hardship in our own country - as explained quite rightly by VCadahia at comment 4.

While we send 'Development Assistance' to Indonesia so that they can expand their armed forces with the intention of waving a big military stick at Australia we have over 100,000 Australians sleeping on the streets every night and real aid agencies such as the Salvation Army struggling to keep up with demand.

Does Australia have elements of a third world country? Yes it does and it is all the fault of incompetent governments, stupid politicians and an out of control egotistical bureaucracy.

[Anton]

6.

Public housing is an expense, not an investment. capping rents would further reduce the rental stock.

less public housing would reduce unemployment by forcing people to live where the jobs are. currently the most attractive areas are those as far as possible from Jobs.

it is welfare and its associated taxes and debt that cause poverty, welfare could not possibly be the solution at the same time

[Ray]

7.

Negative gearing needs to go, but last time they tried the rental market disappeared.

[pk]

8.

Go and live in Somalia and then tell me about the third world.
You are all a disgrace to our parents and grandparents who actually did it tough in the depression and war rationing years and through actual recessions. Hell, I clearly remember the early 90's recession and we're not even close to that.

6% unemployment

AAA credit rating

What a bunch of hysterical and ignorant whingers you are.

[Anton]

9.

Why does negative gearing need to go? That is like saying companies can't deduct expenses from taxable income. a stupid bogan cry based on the politics of envy.

or should mom and dad savers just write off their sacrifice to provide housing for the lazy? Without negative gearing rents would need to be about tripple what they are now. is that your solution.

[pk]

10.

>or should mom and dad savers just write off their sacrifice to provide housing for the lazy?

Why should 'mum and dad' investors need my tax money (or lack of collection thereof) to help them accrue a property portfolio again? You choose to buy property that's fine- don't expect me to pay for it thanks.

>Without negative gearing rents would need to be about tripple what they are now. is that your solution.

The housing market would come down and many more people could actually afford to stop renting buy all the property being released because these investor bludgers can't suck off the government teat anymore and have to sell up.

[Anton]

11.

That would be the last labor inspired recession

[pk]

12.

>a stupid bogan cry based on the politics of envy.

Incorrect again Anton

http://thingsboganslike.com/?s=negative

[pk]

13.

>That would be the last labor inspired recession

yep and I clearly recall the high unemployment, the crushing interest rates and the empty shopfronts. You are weak if you think what we have now is even comparable. doesn't matter who's in power right now or come september- our economic lives right now are simply not the same sport, let alone ballpark.

[Anton]

14.

peak stupid returns
by your argument your taxes also pay for the staff at the supermarket and seeds a farmer uses to grow food.

do you actually pay taxes on a net basis

[Anton]

15.

Falling house prices stimulate economic growth?

[pk]

16.

yep and i don't see why 2nd home owners get to write off theirs. Bludgers.

[pk]

17.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/time-to-axe-negative-gearing-20110424-1dsxs.html

[pk]

18.

>Falling house prices stimulate economic growth?

When people aren't struggling to pay stupidly high rents- they can go and buy rubbish they don't need and stimulate the economy. You against home ownership for many because a minority want to increase their personal wealth at the country's expense do you?

[pk]

19.

We are talking billions in lost revenue here. We could pay for the NDIS with it. But no, best little johnny can't get a subsidised wheelchair because 'mum and dad' investors need a subsidised 2nd house.

[Allan]

20.

Anton, public housing may be an initial expense but there is a return from rental payments and therefore the expense is reduced or even turned into an investment.

It is not welfare that is the cause of poverty, it is the almost criminal ineptitude of the government and its bureaucracy to define and manage proper control of the welfare programmes.

"by forcing people to live where the jobs are." What jobs. Jobs are not being created despite what the government says. Between 2008 and 2012 80,000 jobs were sent off-shore at an average 20,000 per year. The National Institute of Economic & Industry Research, in keeping with UN policy, seems to be quite chuffed that in the next three decades 700,000 to 1,000,000 service sector jobs will go to the Philippines or India or other foreign countries.

With the services industry sending jobs out of Australia, the manufacturing moving off-shore and businesses closing at alarming rates the job prospects for the future are looking pretty grim and inappropriate and poorly managed welfare systems will be further stretched.

Australia a third world country - it's on the way.

[ibbit]

21.

Good round up of those disadvantaged by Gillard et al (not Tim, or the ABC though.) In mentioning labor politicians advantaging themselves at the expense of voter pockets, did you forget the immensely privileged by the adorable Gillard, union bully boys?

How about this for government theft? A pensioner who had had a quadruple bipass emerged from hospital to find Gillard et al had drained his $25.000 or thereabouts dollars of savings from his saving account leaving a nil balance. The money was purloined as unclaimed monies.

This money was saved over many years against medical expenses in later life. Not people who can go out a buy a Louis Vuiton briefcase for several thousands as Gillard did a while back.

[ibbit]

22.

comment 3. No! the answer is to manage the economy well, such that business can actually afford to employ people, thus negating the need to lift benefits.

[ibbit]

23.

A major fault of the Howard government was not to tie monies given for specific programmes - public housing being one, such that the money was spent where it was meant to go, instead of being wasted elsewhere as in Queeensland, or for that matter, most places where Labor held the purse strings.

Welfare is not the answer. It is meant as a safety net for those who cannot help themselves or suffer some great life problem and need the help of the taxpayer.

[Anton]

24.

The rent on public housing hardly represents a positive return on investment. Consider this - private rentals mostly run at a loss, so if public housing rents are lower the loss is greater. That is even before including the time cost of money.

Unemployment is not possible in a true free market. Unemployment and recessions require a government, welfare, unions and taxes are the tools used to create poverty

Sent from my HTC Velocity 4G on the Next G network

[Allan]

25.

Anton, where do you find support for your claim that private rentals mostly run at a loss? While only on a small scale, I have been there and I would say that it would be the case only where the rental was poorly managed, usually under the control of property managers. I chose my own tenants, organised my own contracts, personally collected rent and conducted regular inspections without once having any trouble and certainly not running at a loss.

I will concede that under government management the rental business could run at a loss but that need not be the case. It would only be the case where you have lunatics running the asylum.

If unemployment is not possible in a true free market then there is a lesson there for some. Let us not speak of utopian situations and what shouldn't happen because we don't have that scenario.

I agree that unemployment and recession require all those things you say and we have them in big large lumps and that is basically what I said.

A recent report says that the government is not being truthful when reporting ABS figures on unemployment. While the government claims that unemployment is 5.6 percent it is much higher than that.

Roy Morgan polling company, put the March jobless rate at almost double the official figure, with 1.37 million people out of work, or 10.8 percent of the workforce, up from the initial global financial crisis peak of 8.0 percent in February 2009. According to Morgan, another 936,000 people were under-employed, working part-time and looking for more work.

These revised figures reveal that the ABS only classify a person as unemployed if they work less than one hour per week. Would anyone existing in the real world believe that you were employed if you work say 80 minutes per week? In my day the coppers would have locked you up for having no visible means of support.

As I said at comment 20, jobs are disappearing out of Australia at a great rate of knots and go along with a disappearing manufacturing base and business closures. We are going to be in trouble unless something is done by an incoming government and I wont hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

The bottom line, I believe, is that we do have elements of the third world here in Australia and it is only going to get worse.

[Ross]

26.

You're the one who's against government intervention at the cost of liberty, why should I have to subsidise someone else's loss on THEIR property which I may never even see let alone live in?

I find this pretty hypocritical since you're for negative gearing yet also for the privatisation of the ABC for essentially the same reasons.
So, do you like big government?

[Ross]

27.

Unemployment is not possible in a true free market. Unemployment and recessions require a government, welfare, unions and taxes are the tools used to create poverty

So there can be no shortage of jobs in a truly free market?
That goes against the very essence of supply and demand.
Manufacturing in Australia has become too expensive so it moves off shore, IT consultancy has done the same, as will mining in the future.
I suppose you're referring to the fact that in a 'free market' you're free to go to those countries and work for $1 a day, but there's not much in the way of growth in any other sectors in Australia so hence, there's less positions available, hence unemployment.

[AlterEgo]

28.

Who is kidding who?

The Federal Government loves rental housing.

The nett rental income that the property owner receives is subject to taxation - at the owner's top marginal rate.

Sure you can negative gear, but this is a loss maker and the owner hopes to make a capital gain as a long time goes by. After paying the property off to the extent that the gearing is positive - see paragraph above!

In the end, it is the federal government that is the big winner - and they did not have to do a thing!

[John Mc]

29.

I suppose you're referring to the fact that in a 'free market' you're free to go to those countries and work for $1 a day, but there's not much in the way of growth in any other sectors in Australia so hence, there's less positions available, hence unemployment.

And yet, wherever we have free markets wages increase. And wherever we have a lack of free markets, people get poorer! Go figure!

[Anton]

30.

Anton, where do you find support for your claim that private rentals mostly run at a loss

The issue of negative gearing - investment properties that run a profit do not generate negative gearing offset. If most houses do not run at a loss then there is also no negative gearing issue.

A recent report says that the government is not being truthful when reporting ABS figures on unemployment

Exactly. The main instrument of deception is the "participation rate" which allows the unemployment statistic to be anything the trade union dominated ABS wants it to be. Ignore actual hours worked, hourly rate achieved and exclude students and unemployment can vanish altogether.

[John Mc]

31.

Very few governments report honest unemployment figures. Places like France report unemployment rates that approach half the real figure.

[Anton]

32.

Let me save you the embarrassment of asking.

In negative gearing the owner offsets the costs of the investment property against their income as a taxable deduction, and they pay tax on their net income. What is unfair about that – everybody else and all businesses pay tax on their net income, which is determined by revenue minus expenses. When the house runs at a profit there is no taxable offset and the income is added to the owner’s taxable income. When the house is sold, a capital gain is also added to the owner’s taxable income.

If you buy a pair of workboots to allow you to earn an income, the cost of boots can be deducted from your taxable income. If the corner shop has to pay for their bread before they sell it to you, the cost of that bread is deducted from their revenues to determine their taxable income. Income tax is a profits based tax, unlike a sales tax.

Feel wiser now?

[Anton]

33.

So there can be no shortage of jobs in a truly free market?

No, it is not possible

That goes against the very essence of supply and demand.

No again. That goes exactly as the laws of supply and demand dictate.

Your mistake is that you are treating prices as fixed. In a free market prices are determined by supply and demand, both sellers and buyers are price takers in a free market. The price (including wages) will automatically adjust to the level where the number of buyers and sellers is exactly matched.

Manufacturing in Australia has been destroyed because unskilled labour is too expensive relative to skilled labour. Minimum wages, the dole and trade unions have made unskilled labour price uncempetitive.

Sadly, when a manufacturer moves overseas, it is not just the unskilled labour that lose their jobs, everyone does.

With our welfare safety net modelled on a hamock, there is no incentive for the unskilled to upgrade their value. There is also no way to lower their minimum wage demand. So business just goes elsewhere.

[Anton]

34.

And yet, wherever we have free markets wages increase. And wherever we have a lack of free markets, people get poorer! Go figure!

The power of competition. Efficiency/productivity gains to give higher profits, higher wages and better products all at the same time. The same forces of competition also force these benefits to be shared fairly between business, labour and customers.

[Ross]

35.

So what you are saying is that as an individual, I have the duty of subsidising somebody else's loss?
Where is the fairness in that?

And do you have the viewpoint that individuals don't have the right to unionise and protest their rate of pay?
Personally I think that we give too many rights and concessions to a 'business' even though they are not an actual physical entity that cannot be held accountable since any levies, fines or what have you that are charged to it are offset by passing the cost onto the consumer or the employees through a lowered wage.

[Ross]

36.

You're using the example of a communist dictatorship which has trade embargoes with the worlds largest consumers as your example, which is the worst case scenario.
It doesn't apply to countries that have an adequate private sector to supply goods and services that the consumer wants, which of course results in a better standard of living.

It's all about balance.

[John Mc]

37.

So what you are saying is that as an individual, I have the duty of subsidising somebody else's loss?
Where is the fairness in that?

Do you oppose subsidies to the car industry, by chance?

[Anton]

38.

You are not subsidising anybody's loss. Negative gearing only applies where the owner is a net taxpayer overall. The house losses can only be offset against other profits or income. And when the house makes a profit, including at sale, the owner pays additional tax.

Remember, tax is theft, so tax minimisation is more than a right, it is a duty.

[John Mc]

39.

It's all about balance.

Damn straight. We need more private sector involvement in roads and public infrastructure in general. There is far too much of a government monopoly.

[Anton]

40.

People can join a union or act as individuals to get higher pay, just as businesses can decide what a job is worth.

In a free market wages in declining industries should decline and wages in growing industries should rise. This should cause people to migrate to the areas of growth, driving further growth and eliminating the oversupply of labour in declining industries, supporting the remaining wages.

There should have been a migration of labour from manufacturing to mining, but welfare and minimum wages prevented this. The result was limiting the overall growth in mining and increasing unemployment in manufacturing. Everybody is worse off.

[Ross]

41.

I do actually, if the car industry can't function in Australia then why keep it on life support?

Also in regards to road and rail, I'm of the belief that the government should make the plan, hold the reservations and explicitly state the conditions of the construction with private enterprise.
Should those conditions not be met, the company should be penalised or lose its right to monetise that resource.
However, with such conditions few companies would be up to the challenge of that since they are committing to a long term project and they need to guarantee long term returns.

I am also of the belief that in terms of certain infrastructure, such as water, gas, electricity and phone lines, the suppliers should have full range of the cost of their product, however since you can only have one line to each premises the 'poles and wires' should either remain with the government or an independent NfP organisation who's sole job is to cover the cost of maintenance and upgrades.
If you think that this is not an exercise that is in line with the free market, look back to the privatisation of Telstra. All of it went, including the lines to the premises.
Telstra then began charging 3rd party ISPs using their infrastructure MORE than their own retail arm, which was anti-competitive because of the nature of the system.

My $0.02

[Anton]

42.

Looks like the unions have a hieved a good outcome for the workers at ford.

[toldyouso]

43.

The Government has already closed that loop hole by taxing the capital gain on rental properties when that are sold. That's why I'm selling mine now, so they don't get a bigger portion later. I'm not going through years of worry handling an investment property so the Government can get a slice of my hard earned wealth. Hey guess what I'm not the only one! So where will people live now? Governments need to realize that people who buy investment properties provide most of the affordable rents.