Closed Thread
Page 83 of 99 FirstFirst ... 3373818283848593 ... LastLast
Results 821 to 830 of 981
  1. #821
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Haunted House
    Posts
    10,891
    Thanks
    1,538
    Thanked
    1,568
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by meilaa View Post
    About this no new start thing, as a young person I'm incredibly happy. I work as a supervisor at a coles store while I study and see many people my age continue to enjoy free money without a single attempt at getting a job in the past couple years since finishing school.
    My partner works full time as a cook and brings in little more than many others our age who don't work or study.

    Many people our age have been brought up with the idea that money is free. Their parents and grandparents had government aide due to their low income status but they want expect a full wage.

    "In the six months applicants for Newstart and Youth Allowance do not receive income support, they will be required to undertake government-funded job seeking programs.

    Newstart applicants will receive one month of income support for every year they worked before applying for the dole and exceptions to the six months of no income support include parents, young people unable to work more than 30 hours a week, part-time apprentices and Disability Employment Service clients.

    People who refuse jobs will also be penalised with their income payments withdrawn." (http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...yment-benefits)

    I see this as being very fair.
    The stats show that most young people, in fact people overall want to work, because being poor isn't fun.

    I have DD 20 and she has a bunch of friends from 17-around 23 years of age. They all work or want to work. My DD usually works part time, she has applied for about 12 jobs this week alone and babysits to supplement her income, while studying full time.

    There are some reasons why people may refuse jobs. One woman I know was working but it wasn't enough hours, so they tried to make her take another job, longer hours, that actually made less money then the first job. And were going to penalise her for saying no.

    Some people don't have transport or support systems where jobs are offered.

    All it will do is force people to take low paid jobs, keep in poverty and working for less money. Companies will live it, bosses will live it.

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

    beebs  (22-05-2014),smallpotatoes  (23-05-2014)

  3. #822
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Haunted House
    Posts
    10,891
    Thanks
    1,538
    Thanked
    1,568
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by VicPark View Post
    That's fine if that's a call they make, but then I don't think it's fair for them to get paid by the Government to stay home when their healthy 6+ year old is at school.
    Then people have to pay after school and before school care, which can cost more then the difference they make. And the government pays for half of it. So governments will still be paying for people to work.

    Also so the hours are often too long. I used to work in childcare. Many shifts started at 6:30 am or finished 6:30 pm, I did not finish in time to pick up my son from after school care, and I started to early to get him there.

    Also who is to say if a child is healthy enough or emotionally able to cope? My son had so many issues with his health but it wasn't considered a disability and I would have still been expected to work all the same.

    I think the policy is grossly unfair.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sockstealingpoltergeist For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (22-05-2014),KaraB  (22-05-2014)

  5. #823
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    12,708
    Thanks
    9,558
    Thanked
    12,691
    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 Nomsie View Post
    Surely another idea would be better... perhaps asking recipients with their youngest child being over 6 to volunteer somewhere for x amount of hours a week to keep the payment? I don't know, just the first idea that came to mind, positive there would be issues with it... I just have a few issues with trying to get parents into the already crowded workforce and placing more burden on the child care industry.

    .
    We're going to have to agree to disagree. I just don't think healthy parents should be paid by the Government to stay home and look after healthy school aged kids. It's a lifestyle choice that should be funded by the family themselves. IMO it should be one of the firs things to go if the government needs to cut the budget.

  6. #824
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,517
    Thanks
    432
    Thanked
    3,246
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by meilaa View Post
    If they could prove their case was a real issue and not just the issue of laziness (as it is 90% of the time) then I believe exceptions should be made.
    To be fair though I think Australia's welfare system is far to generous. If you are unemployed you should be given the bare minimum to scrape buy on. It's not fair that without working you can have a new phone, nice new tv and a decent car when many people working have almost no disposable income and struggle to live.
    You are given the bare minimum to scrape by on.
    A nice new phone is a need for work and most people use theirs at computers as well.
    Where I used to live, you can kiss your chances of work goodbye without a reliable car.
    And the TV thing I can't comment on, other than people save up to buy those things and buy them second hand/factory rejected or on credit.

    Unless you think living on $250 a week before rent/food/bills is fun, I mean. And that's rounded up. I just went back through my centerlink logs. It's actually about $200 per week and where I used to live, there are no real fresh food markets, no aldi, no costco and as an example for 1/4 head of caulliflower at Coles was $4 dollars last year. There is also a lack of work and the government just laid off 200 public servants, so even less jobs for more people.

    Sent from my GT-I9505 using The Bub Hub mobile app

  7. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Jennaisme For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (22-05-2014),KaraB  (22-05-2014),Mokeybear  (22-05-2014),mummytomy2boysxxx  (22-05-2014)

  8. #825
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    7,849
    Thanks
    5,065
    Thanked
    4,446
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 17/4/15100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by Busy-Bee View Post
    DF leaves for work at 6:15 am and doesn't get home until 5:15pm (sometimes later). If something happened and I couldn't look after the kids and they had to go to CC and OOSC around DF's working hours he would have to be waiting at the door at 6am of CC so he could make it to work on time.

    If I were working in a 'proper job' (I work from home) then the kids would be in CC and/or OOSC from 6:30 to 5/5:30 every day.

    ***
    Another pearler from the LNP's budget

    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politi...520-38mnf.html

    Key point: If a school wants funding to provide students with youth welfare worker the person has to be a chaplain - no funding for secular youth welfare workers from this budget.



    And people wonder why atheists and secularists get so angry.



    [/COLOR][/LEFT]

    I'm catholic and that makes me angry too!

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to A-Squared For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (22-05-2014)

  10. #826
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    12,708
    Thanks
    9,558
    Thanked
    12,691
    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 sockstealingpoltergeist View Post
    Then people have to pay after school and before school care, which can cost more then the difference they make. And the government pays for half of it. So governments will still be paying for people to work.

    Also so the hours are often too long. I used to work in childcare. Many shifts started at 6:30 am or finished 6:30 pm, I did not finish in time to pick up my son from after school care, and I started to early to get him there.

    Also who is to say if a child is healthy enough or emotionally able to cope? My son had so many issues with his health but it wasn't considered a disability and I would have still been expected to work all the same.

    I think the policy is grossly unfair.
    Plenty of families manage to have both parents working. I'm not saying it's easy in all cases but I still think if your healthy and your kids are heathy then there will be some work that can be done (perhaps not the first choice but people have to be flexible).

    Good point about not having a formal diagnosis. A line has to be drawn somewhere. IMO if a doctor says a child needs to have a stay at home parent to survive/do well in life then that's ok with me (in the absence of a formal diagnosis). If a doctor won't back a parents call to stay home then to me that says it's a lifestyle choice and not a need, and I think that should be self funded.

  11. #827
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    88
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    21
    Reviews
    0
    I have to also agree with vicpark..I'm a strong labor supporter but I do agree with not paying ftb b to families of school age children.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to mum2maisie For This Useful Post:

    A-Squared  (22-05-2014)

  13. #828
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Haunted House
    Posts
    10,891
    Thanks
    1,538
    Thanked
    1,568
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by VicPark View Post
    Plenty of families manage to have both parents working. I'm not saying it's easy in all cases but I still think if your healthy and your kids are heathy then there will be some work that can be done (perhaps not the first choice but people have to be flexible).

    Good point about not having a formal diagnosis. A line has to be drawn somewhere. IMO if a doctor says a child needs to have a stay at home parent to survive/do well in life then that's ok with me (in the absence of a formal diagnosis). If a doctor won't back a parents call to stay home then to me that says it's a lifestyle choice and not a need, and I think that should be self funded.
    In my case my Dr certainly would have said my son was very sick - needed grommets etc. this kind if thing can happen at any age. However I still wouldn't have qualified for anything other then Newstart and would have been penalised.

    I have a friend with three children, she plays tag team with her husband and her sister ( who has no children) and they take turns in taking their leave because all of the children have had chronic ear infections and required grommets. If she was a single parent requiring that time off due to no supports etc which happens to many women, then she would definitely lose her job.

    It doesn't matter any way, because the media and the government frame things in a way to make you think single mothers need to be pushed to work or study. When statistically they (the majority) already were- it's too hard to survive on parenting payment alone (I couldn't do it). Many had casual and part time employment that was a little more family friendly and they will now be forced to work full time.

    I don't think working full time is the only valuable thing you can do for society. Raising healthy children is pretty important.

    All the changes do is push the already struggling sole patents and their children further into poverty. IMO. Punishing children because their parents are divorced, with poverty and homelessness etc is to me diabolical.

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sockstealingpoltergeist For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (22-05-2014),wktz  (22-05-2014)

  15. #829
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    12,708
    Thanks
    9,558
    Thanked
    12,691
    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 sockstealingpoltergeist View Post
    In my case my Dr certainly would have said my son was very sick - needed grommets etc. this kind if thing can happen at any age. However I still wouldn't have qualified for anything other then Newstart and would have been penalised.

    I have a friend with three children, she plays tag team with her husband and her sister ( who has no children) and they take turns in taking their leave because all of the children have had chronic ear infections and required grommets. If she was a single parent requiring that time off due to no supports etc which happens to many women, then she would definitely lose her job.

    It doesn't matter any way, because the media and the government frame things in a way to make you think single mothers need to be pushed to work or study. When statistically they (the majority) already were- it's too hard to survive on parenting payment alone (I couldn't do it). Many had casual and part time employment that was a little more family friendly and they will now be forced to work full time.

    I don't think working full time is the only valuable thing you can do for society. Raising healthy children is pretty important.

    All the changes do is push the already struggling sole patents and their children further into poverty. IMO. Punishing children because their parents are divorced, with poverty and homelessness etc is to me diabolical.
    I think struggling single parents should still have a helping hand...

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to VicPark For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (22-05-2014),KaraB  (22-05-2014)

  17. #830
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Haunted House
    Posts
    10,891
    Thanks
    1,538
    Thanked
    1,568
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by VicPark View Post
    I think struggling single parents should still have a helping hand...
    Ahh got you. Sorry, I misunderstood.


  18. The Following User Says Thank You to sockstealingpoltergeist For This Useful Post:

    VicPark  (22-05-2014)


 

Similar Threads

  1. What does the budget mean for you
    By loislane2010 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 24-05-2014, 14:49
  2. The Budget?
    By Ellewood in forum News & Current Affairs
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 18-05-2014, 19:44
  3. How do you budget?
    By IvyRain in forum Family Finances
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 29-04-2014, 19:20

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
Einsteinz Music
Make music at Einsteinz Music in age-appropriate class in Sydney's Inner West, Eastern Suburbs or North Shore. For ages 6 mths - 4 yrs. All music is live! Christmas Gift certificates available for full term or casual classes. Call 0431 338 143
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
Baby U & The Wiggles - Toilet Training Products
Toilet training can be a testing time but Baby U is there to assist you and your toddler with the daunting task of toilet training. With a range of products that can be used at home, on holidays or out & about.
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!