+ Reply to Thread
Page 28 of 34 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 336
  1. #271
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    827
    Thanks
    36
    Thanked
    433
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    In answer to the direct question. Centre link payments are designed to be a means to an end. With a cheap house deposit being $20k if you are able to save that quantity of money whilst paying all of your other expenses on an income of $250 a week for a single on new start I'm not sure how..... Good on you for doing it but I don't think it's a realistic expectation that people on government benefits will be able to get ahead. I have no idea how my husbands ex wife (single mum on a single parent payment) affords 2 overseas holidays a year ....... Well actually I do and I'm pretty sure it's illegal but centre link won't do anything about it as she can spend her money as she pleases

  2. #272
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,512
    Thanks
    432
    Thanked
    3,239
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by VicPark View Post
    I think people's sensitivities are high and we all agree on more than what we care to admit. I think everyone agrees SAHM's have a tough gig. And I don't think anyone is against those in need receiving a helping hand. And people that can budget: good on them. I think people just disagree to the extent to which people should be able to 'get ahead' while on welfare. For me saving for a rainy day, a small holiday is fine. An overseas holiday or a house deposit not so much. Each person will have a different threshold though.
    You still didn't answer the question.

    If, instead of saving for the rainy day or a small holiday, they continue to save to go to Bali, why is that a bad thing?

    I'm actually starting to think it has nothing to do with tax dollars and more to do with jealousy for the most part.

  3. #273
    TimeForWine's Avatar
    TimeForWine is offline Taking everyday one wine at a time...
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    409
    Thanks
    1,060
    Thanked
    422
    Reviews
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jennaisme View Post
    You still didn't answer the question.

    If, instead of saving for the rainy day or a small holiday, they continue to save to go to Bali, why is that a bad thing?

    I'm actually starting to think it has nothing to do with tax dollars and more to do with jealousy for the most part.
    Jealousy over what exactly?

  4. #274
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,512
    Thanks
    432
    Thanked
    3,239
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TimeForWine View Post
    Jealousy over what exactly?

    Ah, I should have explained better. My apologies.

    A lot of people used the excuse "If a working person can't afford to go on an overseas holiday, those on welfare shouldn't be able to either."

    The current argument that "little" luxuries are okay but "big" luxuries are not, despite the fact that it would be the same amount of money accruing over a longer time period due to sacrifice and patience makes it sound like jealousy more than anything else. It doesn't make sense.
    It would make more sense if people just came out and said "No, no wiggle room. They should only get enough to pay rent and buy food. The end. That's it. No more than that. If they have any left over it should be returned to the government." But the logic of little luxuries being okay but bigger ones not just makes it sound like jealousy that they can afford to go overseas while someone who is working and chose not to make the same sacrifices can't.

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jennaisme For This Useful Post:

    happy wanderer  (03-09-2013),~ElectricPink~  (05-09-2013)

  6. #275
    TimeForWine's Avatar
    TimeForWine is offline Taking everyday one wine at a time...
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    409
    Thanks
    1,060
    Thanked
    422
    Reviews
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jennaisme View Post
    Ah, I should have explained better. My apologies.

    A lot of people used the excuse "If a working person can't afford to go on an overseas holiday, those on welfare shouldn't be able to either."

    The current argument that "little" luxuries are okay but "big" luxuries are not, despite the fact that it would be the same amount of money accruing over a longer time period due to sacrifice and patience makes it sound like jealousy more than anything else. It doesn't make sense.
    It would make more sense if people just came out and said "No, no wiggle room. They should only get enough to pay rent and buy food. The end. That's it. No more than that. If they have any left over it should be returned to the government." But the logic of little luxuries being okay but bigger ones not just makes it sound like jealousy that they can afford to go overseas while someone who is working and chose not to make the same sacrifices can't.
    ahh ok I get you now. Thanks.

  7. #276
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Fraser Coast
    Posts
    482
    Thanks
    529
    Thanked
    348
    Reviews
    0
    What sort of centrelink payments are you on? How can youget them when you get a super pension too?
    Aged pensioners are entitled to receive Centrelink benefits and receive a self funded super. It's all in the rules. Each payment is particular as are an individual's circumstances. Half the comments in this thread would be revised or perhaps not made at all if people were aware of the varying rules for the myriad of payments available to eligible recipients.


    Serving the country well you should be looked after, a super pension to top up centrelink is a part of that.
    It doesn't work like that Sentimentalism in the form of "I served my country" is just that - a tug on the emotions - and creates the perfect illusion that the job is special. The reality is that being a soldier is a job like any other. There is no conscription in this country so it's just another form of employment. Other people serve their country undertaking jobs that can be far more dangerous (eg. commercial divers, ASIO, emergency rescue workers, miners) and they get the same conditions but without the patriotic fanfare. Thing is, you are entitled to receive Centrelink payments and your super. You don't have to be in the Army for that. There are also provisions for those in receipt of compensation and other payments, depending on the circumstances. Again, it helps to understand the rules regarding entitlements.

    As an aside, I don't see anything wrong with a parent staying at home to care for their children. I see this as an essential service. As someone who had a full-time job until recently when my hours were cut after declaring my pregnancy (yes, it happens and yes, they get away with it), I really missed staying at home with my child and felt I was doing him a huge disservice by being away. Now that I spend part of my time at home, my feelings have been validated.

    Judge ye not.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to happy wanderer For This Useful Post:

    HarvestMoon  (04-09-2013)

  9. #277
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    8,705
    Thanks
    581
    Thanked
    647
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Everyone has the right to set their own priorities and goals, and to strive for those goals how they see fit. Sure, we can have our opinions but best to keep them to ourselves unless it's constructive. I guess depending on what those priorities and goals are and whether you achieved them, than everyone could argue that yes, they did use the payments to "get ahead". The term "get ahead" could mean something different for everyone. My goal was to financially get ahead. I used the payments to fund my lifestyle to allow me to study and work, so I did achieve my goal.

  10. #278
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    12,708
    Thanks
    9,557
    Thanked
    12,689
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 9/1/15Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 7/11/14Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 3/10/14100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by Jennaisme View Post
    You still didn't answer the question.

    If, instead of saving for the rainy day or a small holiday, they continue to save to go to Bali, why is that a bad thing?

    I'm actually starting to think it has nothing to do with tax dollars and more to do with jealousy for the most part.
    I'm assuming you are genuinely interested in a response and aren't just looking for more fodder to use as ammunition. So here is my response:

    1) Because the Government is having a tough budgetary time and if we don't watch the pennies the economy and society will start going up the crapper and everyone will be screwed. There are a million things the government can spend money on.. Hospitals... Schools.... Higher education...Small business. They need to be prudent and make sure they aren't over spending in a certain area... So there is more to go around to all the areas that need assistance. And IMO if someone is taking overseas trips and paying for house deposits while living on welfare then there is a strong likelihood they are receiving too much welfare and there is some room for the fat to be trimmed.

    2) Because if you want to go on an overseas holiday or buy as house I think you should do it using money you worked for. Not money that was give to you by... Yes I will say it: taxpayers. Am I jelous of someone who doesn't work and who can afford go overseas? Well yes.

  11. #279
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,512
    Thanks
    432
    Thanked
    3,239
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    I was genuinely curious to the answer. I'm not entirely sure what ammunition fodder is..

    But you still didn't answer the question.

    If people can save up their pennies for a small holiday, so for example, in six months they save up 500 dollars to go on an interstate holiday to visit family or whatever, why is that okay, but in twelve months they save up 1000 and go to Bali? The amount of money is still the same over the same amount of time.

    Like I said, it doesn't make sense. Maybe it just doesn't make sense to me that "little" luxuries are okay but "big" ones aren't, and unless you make people give back any money they manage to scrimp and save by cutting things here and there in their budget, then the money is still going to be spent somewhere.

    If the government implements the "Any money left over after your bills and food is paid for must be returned to the government", people will just spend that money elsewhere. So they'll get the internet or whatever, because in todays society it is actually classed as a "necessity" rather than a pleasant thing to have.

    And I don't think getting a house deposit is entirely possible, I still haven't figured out how it would be, unless it was one of the DOH sale ones where (from my understanding of my once-upon-a-time research) you actually don't need a very big one. If one at all.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Jennaisme For This Useful Post:

    ~ElectricPink~  (05-09-2013)

  13. #280
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    12,708
    Thanks
    9,557
    Thanked
    12,689
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 9/1/15Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 7/11/14Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 3/10/14100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by Jennaisme View Post
    I was genuinely curious to the answer. I'm not entirely sure what ammunition fodder is..

    But you still didn't answer the question.

    If people can save up their pennies for a small holiday, so for example, in six months they save up 500 dollars to go on an interstate holiday to visit family or whatever, why is that okay, but in twelve months they save up 1000 and go to Bali? The amount of money is still the same over the same amount of time.

    Like I said, it doesn't make sense. Maybe it just doesn't make sense to me that "little" luxuries are okay but "big" ones aren't, and unless you make people give back any money they manage to scrimp and save by cutting things here and there in their budget, then the money is still going to be spent somewhere.

    If the government implements the "Any money left over after your bills and food is paid for must be returned to the government", people will just spend that money elsewhere. So they'll get the internet or whatever, because in todays society it is actually classed as a "necessity" rather than a pleasant thing to have.

    And I don't think getting a house deposit is entirely possible, I still haven't figured out how it would be, unless it was one of the DOH sale ones where (from my understanding of my once-upon-a-time research) you actually don't need a very big one. If one at all.
    Ok this is the last time I am going to attempt to answer your question. If you don't understand or agree with my answer im sorry, but I won't be answering this question again.

    I don't think someone who is on an adequate amount of welfare should be in a position where they can save up enough money for a 'big' overseas holiday. By the time you pay for incidentals a Bali trip is going to be more than $1,000 for a small family.

    If someone can afford to save $1000's while on welfare then that should be re-invested in something that can help get them off welfare (education, work clothes, interview coaching, childcare, moving to an area with more jobs etc) not be flittered away on something that will do stuff all to get them off the welfare cycle.

    If someone has saved up thousands while on welfare and doesn't have it earmarked for an investment in getting themselves off welfare then I think Centrelink should look long and hard at reducing their payments.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to VicPark For This Useful Post:

    House Mummaxxxx  (04-09-2013)


 

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 96
    Last Post: 01-09-2013, 20:18
  2. Question on "Parental Leave Pay" and "Family Tax Benefit"
    By StellaG in forum General Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 19-06-2013, 07:41
  3. *Spinoff - "Trapping" and child support
    By moosey in forum General Chat
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 07-04-2013, 11:43

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
free weekly newsletters | sign up now!
who are these people who write great posts? meet our hubbub authors!
Learn how you can contribute to the hubbub!

reviews
learn how you can become a reviewer!

competitions

forum - chatting now
christmas gift guidesee all Red Stocking
Springfree Trampoline
Give the Ultimate Christmas Gift Springfree Trampoline
The World's Safest Trampoline™ is now also the world's first Smart Trampoline™. Sensors on the mat detect your every move and your jumps control fun, educational and active games on tablet. Secure the Ultimate Christmas Gift today!
sales & new stuffsee all
Wendys Music School Melbourne
Wondering about Music Lessons? FREE 30 minute ASSESSMENT. Find out if your child is ready! Piano from age 3 years & Guitar, Singing, Drums, Violin from age 5. Lessons available for all ages. 35+ years experience. Structured program.
Use referral 'bubhub' when booking
featured supporter
Philips AVENT Australia
Pregnancy and early parenthood is an exciting and challenging time, but it’s good to know there is expert advice on hand to ensure that your baby gets the best start in life.
gotcha
X

Pregnant for the first-time?

Not sure where to start? We can help!

Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!