Who are the real bludgers?      :(

Date
    March 13, 2013
    The Age.

Welfare dependency, most agree, is an ugly thing. It is also a loaded term that brings to mind bludgers addicted to government benefits.

We're not thinking, of course, of the 44 per cent of taxpayers who get more in benefits than they pay in. Who dares suggest ''working families'', even if quite well off, are guilty of some sort of moral failing for accepting state handouts?      :(

It seems the better off feel entitled to better treatment by government. Their status as wealth generators is a passport to ''diplomatic immunity'' from accusations of sponging off the state - however disproportionate to need their benefits and tax concessions may be. Similarly, while age pensioners get the biggest slice of $132 billion in welfare spending (36 per cent of the budget), they are seen to have earned the right to be dependent on government - even those living in $1 million-plus homes. Pensioners and their assets are untouchable, too.

The young, unemployed and single mothers are subject to a different standard. They get lower benefits, often too low to keep them out of poverty, but are treated as a morally suspect underclass that lives off taxpayers who have worked hard for everything they have.    


The young jobless have even been accused of being ''job snobs'' who just need to get off their bums to find work. Under-30s in areas with unskilled job vacancies may lose benefits under the Coalition, which also wants long-term unemployed under 50 to work for the dole. Their ''free ride'' is set to end.

Single mums have already copped it. The Gillard government shifted them from a single parent benefit to Newstart, which allows fewer hours of paid work before payments are cut. The government disregarded the impact on low-income families to save $728 million over four years.      :(

However, much better-off ''working families'' who have come to rely on government to boost their finances seemingly have little to fear from the bipartisan savings drive.

Families with children are the second-biggest recipients of welfare spending - about $34 billion a year. Most goes on family tax benefits A and B, but there are also childcare benefits and rebates, paid parental leave, schoolchildren's and baby bonuses and carer allowances. The full list of family benefits is very long.

Many who receive family welfare are, on any reasonable definition, not needy. Couples with two children in the middle 50 per cent range of incomes ($80,000 to $135,000) may qualify for most or all of the above benefits. One partner can earn up to $150,000 and the second up to $25,623 and they can still get something from Family Tax Benefit B, which costs about $4.5 billion a year.

A reality check on incomes: 50 per cent of households had incomes below $65,000 in the 2011 census. Half of all workers earn $50,000 or less.

Given how much welfare money goes to middle and high-income families, you'd think the budget costs of ''middle-class welfare'' would be a natural target for savings, especially when Abbott has declared: ''The fiscal position will always be better under the Coalition because budget surpluses and reducing debt, paying back debt, that's in our DNA.''

Yet family payments seem to be off-limits. The Coalition even proposes to add Abbott's $3 billion-a-year paid parental leave plan so benefits for high-income earners are proportionate to their earnings.

When last year's budget trimmed the baby bonus for households with incomes of up to $75,000 in the six months after birth, this was said to be a ''vicious and savage'' attack on families. But just because maternity allowances are an Australian tradition - Labor started them at five pounds in 1912 - that does not mean we can afford to make such benefits an inviolable universal entitlement.

What about private health cover, which gets government support worth $5 billion a year? Policy holders received a 30 per cent rebate on premiums regardless of incomes until the government legislated last year to reduce rebates for single people earning more than $83,000 (the top 20 per cent) and families more than $166,000. Rebates cut out at $129,000 and $258,000. The saving is $2.4 billion over three years.

Abbott vows to restore the full rebate for all as soon as possible, for the usual genetic reasons. ''Private health insurance is in our DNA. It is our raison d'etre, that is why we exist as a political movement, to give more support and encourage people who want to get ahead.''

They're getting ahead all right, especially via superannuation. Tax concessions cost $32 billion a year, but any move to stem the bleeding has the beneficiaries and their advocates screaming ''class war''.      :(

They're also winning that war hands down, by the way. Super concessions work by taxing contributions and earnings at 15 per cent instead of a taxpayer's marginal rate, so the benefit expands the more you earn. Treasury calculates the top 5 per cent of earners get 37 per cent of the value of concessions. The average male's total super balance as they near retirement isn't worth even half the top earners' average tax concessions of $520,000.

Health and superannuation benefits fatten up the industries as well. Benefits that supplement low incomes are also a de facto subsidy for bosses who can boost their own incomes by paying people less than they could live on without state help.

Far too many Australians on good incomes have come to rely in many ways on an overstretched welfare budget, one that began as a safety net for the truly needy. This culture of entitlement represents a greater and more insidious moral failing than applies to the vulnerable few whose dependency we scorn.      :(

John Watson is an Age senior writer.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/who-are-the-real-bludgers-20130312-2fyf3.html#ixzz2bd24TxP3

wrote on Aug 11^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

Who are the real bludgers?      :(

People, who for year after year, take more than they contribute; always have been always will be.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 11^th, 2013 at 1:50pm:

wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 1:41pm: Who are the real bludgers?      :( People, who for year after year, take more than they contribute; always have been always will be.

That would be ppl like andrei

SOB

http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 11^th, 2013 at 2:07pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 1:50pm: wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 1:41pm: Who are the real bludgers?      :( People, who for year after year, take more than they contribute; always have been always will be. That would be ppl like andrei SOB http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg

If he gets more in tax handouts than he contributes then yes absolutely, there are no exceptions.

What about pensioners and the disabled.

I have gotten plenty of handouts that I don't need, thanks mostly to John Howard.

ian wrote on Aug 11^th, 2013 at 2:34pm:

What about pensioners and the disabled.

Pensioners have paid into the pension all their working lives. Disabled I suppose it depends how old they are. Cant leave them to die though.

SOB

http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg

ian wrote on Aug 11^th, 2013 at 2:34pm:

What about pensioners and the disabled.

what about three legged poodles that get free vet service?


Jeezus friggen christ, what about pensioners and the disabled?


Make your point and move on.

wrote on Aug 11^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

It seems the better off feel entitled to better treatment by government. Their status as wealth generators is a passport to ''diplomatic immunity'' from accusations of sponging off the state - however disproportionate to need their benefits and tax concessions may be.

Government benefits were never about "entitlement" or what people deserved, but about economic management and civilisation. For example, social security makes it less likely that people will steal and commit crimes in order to "survive" and make a living. Think about it as an insurance policy against crime. Would you rather pay your taxes than have someone break into your home, smashing the windows and destroying the furniture? That is the question.

The amount of social security we get when we're unemployed, therefore, depends on how much money we need to give people to stop them committing crimes or developing a mental illness as a result of their less-than-pleasant life situation.


wrote on Aug 11^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

Similarly, while age pensioners get the biggest slice of $132 billion in welfare spending (36 per cent of the budget), they are seen to have earned the right to be dependent on government - even those living in $1 million-plus homes. Pensioners and their assets are untouchable, too.

I have no problem with rich people until they start complaining. I have no problem with a rich guy getting social security, for example. Think of income and welfare payments as a clock. You don't want a poor, impoverished guy catching up to you by getting money they didn't earn. Social security means that the clock doesn't stop ticking, even for a rich guy. The tortoise doesn't catch up to the hare in the race for wealth accumulation. The hare may go to sleep for a while, but it will continue to move forward ever so slightly as it sleeps, as if another tortoise was carrying it. It ensures that the rich and wealthy are always better off than people who don't earn the same amount of money while employed. Social security for everyone, including the rich, is a fair policy.

I just don't like it when the rich complain, because with all the wealth they have, I would think they don't have a reason to complain. If you're rich, shut up about your problems because you're doing better than most other people.


wrote on Aug 11^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

Families with children are the second-biggest recipients of welfare spending - about $34 billion a year. Most goes on family tax benefits A and B, but there are also childcare benefits and rebates, paid parental leave, schoolchildren's and baby bonuses and carer allowances. The full list of family benefits is very long.

If people stop having kids, we'd have an aging population. We need 2.1 babies per woman for a sustainable population. Otherwise, the costs needed to look after the elderly would be too much.

Babies and children are expensive. That's why we need policies to support and maybe even promote it. Childless people don't need as much money to sustain their lifestyle. Let's not make life harder for the parents. Birth rates have been declining in the Western world. The baby-making lifestyle needs an economic stimulus.


wrote on Aug 11^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

Yet family payments seem to be off-limits. The Coalition even proposes to add Abbott's $3 billion-a-year paid parental leave plan so benefits for high-income earners are proportionate to their earnings.

I agree. The Coalition's parental leave plan isn't a fair system. High income earners will be better off. I would have thought the task of parenting was the same whether you were rich or poor. Changing nappies, feeding the baby, putting it to sleep ............ how is that job different for mothers who are rich or poor? You're making the same contribution to society.


wrote on Aug 11^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

Abbott vows to restore the full rebate for all as soon as possible, for the usual genetic reasons. ''Private health insurance is in our DNA. It is our raison d'etre, that is why we exist as a political movement, to give more support and encourage people who want to get ahead.''

I have private health insurance. I don't have a problem with government rebates as it's not a classism thing. Private education is a different matter however. That's definitely a class thing and I don't like the government giving too much support to it. It would be supporting snobbery. :D It's fair enough, however, that the State governments look after public education and the Federal gov't supports private.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 11^th, 2013 at 3:22pm:

ian wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 2:34pm: What about pensioners and the disabled. what about three legged poodles that get free vet service? Jeezus friggen christ, what about pensioners and the disabled? Make your point and move on.

Whats the matter, did you mistake the dencorub for hemorroid cream again? Im sure a man with your level of intellectual ability is able to get my point.

That would be one of the most sensible and accurate media pieces on the wealth-fare issue that I've read for quite some time.

He nails it, basically.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 11^th, 2013 at 1:50pm:

wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 1:41pm: Who are the real bludgers?      :( People, who for year after year, take more than they contribute; always have been always will be.

You have just described a large number of wealth-fare recipients.

It's time people realised that it isn't the unemployed who are rorting
the system and getting entitlements they shouldn't get.

It never was. It's these parasites.

The unemployed are merely their scape-goats.

ian wrote on Aug 11^th, 2013 at 3:25pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 3:22pm: ian wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 2:34pm: What about pensioners and the disabled. what about three legged poodles that get free vet service? Jeezus friggen christ, what about pensioners and the disabled? Make your point and move on. Whats the matter, did you mistake the dencorub for hemorroid cream again? Im sure a man with your level of intellectual ability is able to get my point.

Your point seems to be a retorical question, based on the grammar.


Try again, maybe a couple of sentences contributing to a whole paragraph.

Kat wrote on Aug 11^th, 2013 at 3:40pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 1:50pm: wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 1:41pm: Who are the real bludgers?      :( People, who for year after year, take more than they contribute; always have been always will be. You have just described a large number of wealth-fare recipients. It's time people realised that it isn't the unemployed who are rorting the system and getting entitlements they shouldn't get. It never was. It's these parasites. The unemployed are merely their scape-goats.

Some middle class, and every single dole bludger, it is pretty straight forward. If you take more than you give, you are a welfare bludger.

BTW, most middle class pay a sh1t load in tax, a lot more than any 'wealthfare' they may recieve.

Kat wrote on Aug 11^th, 2013 at 3:40pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 1:50pm: wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 1:41pm: Who are the real bludgers?      :( People, who for year after year, take more than they contribute; always have been always will be. You have just described a large number of wealth-fare recipients. It's time people realised that it isn't the unemployed who are rorting the system and getting entitlements they shouldn't get. It never was. It's these parasites. The unemployed are merely their scape-goats.

Most of the unemployed I know work for cash when they can so you are incorrect. In fact the government recognises welfare fraud is epedemic with heavy penalties if caught , however this still doesnt stop them.. The unemployed should be working for their money like everyone else. But you are right, its not just the unemployed, the system is being rorted across the board.

ian wrote on Aug 11^th, 2013 at 2:34pm:

What about pensioners and the disabled.

what about house hoarders and their negative gearing tax rackets being rewarded with a nice little capital gain at the end of it from doing no work ?

ian wrote on Aug 11^th, 2013 at 3:50pm:

Kat wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 3:40pm: BigOl64 wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 1:50pm: wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 1:41pm: Who are the real bludgers?      :( People, who for year after year, take more than they contribute; always have been always will be. You have just described a large number of wealth-fare recipients. It's time people realised that it isn't the unemployed who are rorting the system and getting entitlements they shouldn't get. It never was. It's these parasites. The unemployed are merely their scape-goats. Most of the unemployed I know work for cash when they can so you are incorrect. In fact the government recognises welfare fraud is epedemic with heavy penalties if caught , however this still doesnt stop them.. The unemployed should be working for their money like everyone else. But you are right, its not just the unemployed, the system is being rorted across the board.

You want to talk about defrauding the tax payer how about 13 billion a year in uncollected tax from house hoarders and their negative gearing rackets !!

Sir lastnail wrote on Aug 11^th, 2013 at 4:17pm:

ian wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 2:34pm: What about pensioners and the disabled. what about house hoarders and their negative gearing tax rackets being rewarded with a nice little capital gain at the end of it from doing no work ?

Doing no work? I am currently engaged in a full scale reno job courtesy of the last tenants trashing the joint. You have never owed a house have you.

Sir lastnail wrote on Aug 11^th, 2013 at 4:19pm:

You want to talk about defrauding the tax payer how about 13 billion a year in uncollected tax from house hoarders and their negative gearing rackets !!

Its not 13 billion. You have no idea about numbers.

ian wrote on Aug 11^th, 2013 at 4:21pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 4:17pm: ian wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 2:34pm: What about pensioners and the disabled. what about house hoarders and their negative gearing tax rackets being rewarded with a nice little capital gain at the end of it from doing no work ? Doing no work? I am currently engaged in a full scale reno job courtesy of the last tenants trashing the joint. You have never owed a house have you.

don't worry you'll be able to claim for that as well ;)

and if it was an owner occupier they most likely wouldn't be trashing their own joint !!

ian wrote on Aug 11^th, 2013 at 4:22pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 4:19pm: You want to talk about defrauding the tax payer how about 13 billion a year in uncollected tax from house hoarders and their negative gearing rackets !! Its not 13 billion. You have no idea about numbers.

sorry it's 13 billion in losses resulting in 5.5 billion in uncollected taxes which is the same as the amount the dole costs the tax payer !!

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/negative-geared-investors-lose-13-billion-20130430-2irf3.html

Sir lastnail wrote on Aug 11^th, 2013 at 4:59pm:

ian wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 4:22pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 4:19pm: You want to talk about defrauding the tax payer how about 13 billion a year in uncollected tax from house hoarders and their negative gearing rackets !! Its not 13 billion. You have no idea about numbers. sorry it's 13 billion in losses resulting in 5.5 billion in uncollected taxes which is the same as the amount the dole costs the tax payer !! http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/negative-geared-investors-lose-13-billion-20130430-2irf3.html

Would help yourself if you even bothered to read your own source properly. The bit quoting 5.5b in  forgone revenue relates to fuel excise you maroon. And the 13 b refers to the average loss of taxpayers who invest in property not 13b losses against property. Shares can also be negatively geared as can any investment loan for any purpose. So you got everythying wrong, yet again. You are no financial wizard are you? :D

It seems a bit odd to be calling 'bludgers' those that work while avoiding any reference at al to those that don't work at all.  Regardless of all these welfare payments that may or may not be deserved, calling workers 'bludgers; just reinforces what so many think about the long-term unemployed

ian wrote on Aug 11^th, 2013 at 5:55pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 4:59pm: ian wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 4:22pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 4:19pm: You want to talk about defrauding the tax payer how about 13 billion a year in uncollected tax from house hoarders and their negative gearing rackets !! Its not 13 billion. You have no idea about numbers. sorry it's 13 billion in losses resulting in 5.5 billion in uncollected taxes which is the same as the amount the dole costs the tax payer !! http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/negative-geared-investors-lose-13-billion-20130430-2irf3.html Would help yourself if you even bothered to read your own source properly. The bit quoting 5.5b in  forgone revenue relates to fuel excise you maroon. And the 13 b refers to the average loss of taxpayers who invest in property not 13b losses against property. Shares can also be negatively geared as can any investment loan for any purpose. So you got everythying wrong, yet again. You are no financial wizard are you? :D

works in a servo, drives a 20yo commodore and lives in a rented house with 5 others.  what dop you reckon?

Sir lastnail wrote on Aug 11^th, 2013 at 4:17pm:

ian wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 2:34pm: What about pensioners and the disabled. what about house hoarders and their negative gearing tax rackets being rewarded with a nice little capital gain at the end of it from doing no work ?

Seriously? Your problem is ppl actually making some money? Its prolly the last bastion of making any profit @ all in this country and you have to make a loss to do it.

SOB

http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg

ian wrote on Aug 11^th, 2013 at 5:55pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 4:59pm: ian wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 4:22pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 4:19pm: You want to talk about defrauding the tax payer how about 13 billion a year in uncollected tax from house hoarders and their negative gearing rackets !! Its not 13 billion. You have no idea about numbers. sorry it's 13 billion in losses resulting in 5.5 billion in uncollected taxes which is the same as the amount the dole costs the tax payer !! http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/negative-geared-investors-lose-13-billion-20130430-2irf3.html Would help yourself if you even bothered to read your own source properly. The bit quoting 5.5b in  forgone revenue relates to fuel excise you maroon. And the 13 b refers to the average loss of taxpayers who invest in property not 13b losses against property. Shares can also be negatively geared as can any investment loan for any purpose. So you got everythying wrong, yet again. You are no financial wizard are you? :D

I can read it alright but can you ?


Quote:

The latest Tax Office statistics show the average loss per negatively geared investor was $10,950, up from $9130 the year before. The average loss for a high-income negatively geared investor earning more than $180,000 was $23,800. Higher interest rates and rising property prices during 2010-11 swelled the losses. The figures identify negative gearing as one of the key drains on personal tax collections with one in every seven Australian taxpayers now a property investor and one in every 10 negatively geared.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 11^th, 2013 at 6:09pm:

It seems a bit odd to be calling 'bludgers' those that work while avoiding any reference at al to those that don't work at all.  Regardless of all these welfare payments that may or may not be deserved, calling workers 'bludgers; just reinforces what so many think about the long-term unemployed

Is waiting for the tax system to deliver you a capital gain what you call working ?? Are you fricken kidding me !!

Maybe everyone should do this. Forget about manufacturing anything. That's something that some other country does :(

A great way to cut cost is to cut spending on the criminals. Serving time these days is a joke, give them bread a water, take away all luxuries, such as TV's and gym's. 

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 11^th, 2013 at 6:13pm:

ian wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 5:55pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 4:59pm: ian wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 4:22pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 4:19pm: You want to talk about defrauding the tax payer how about 13 billion a year in uncollected tax from house hoarders and their negative gearing rackets !! Its not 13 billion. You have no idea about numbers. sorry it's 13 billion in losses resulting in 5.5 billion in uncollected taxes which is the same as the amount the dole costs the tax payer !! http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/negative-geared-investors-lose-13-billion-20130430-2irf3.html Would help yourself if you even bothered to read your own source properly. The bit quoting 5.5b in  forgone revenue relates to fuel excise you maroon. And the 13 b refers to the average loss of taxpayers who invest in property not 13b losses against property. Shares can also be negatively geared as can any investment loan for any purpose. So you got everythying wrong, yet again. You are no financial wizard are you? :D works in a servo, drives a 20yo commodore and lives in a rented house with 5 others.  what dop you reckon?

hows your mickey mouse business going bugger face ?

must be paying out a lot on your office RENT :D LOL

Longloser writing about Nail:

Quote:

works in a servo, drives a 20yo commodore and lives in a rented house with 5 others.

More false allegations against Nail.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 11^th, 2013 at 3:46pm:

BTW, most middle class pay a sh1t load in tax, a lot more than any 'wealthfare' they may recieve.

True, we pay about 25k in GST only, and about 12-15k in income tax, yet, the the childcare support is only about 2000-3000 per year, and whenever we are struggling to pay on time and request to arrange for installment repayments, they'd at times grumble that they are not a financial institution. 
And we don't spend in excess either, all goes for educating our kids, home repayments, insurances, medical expenses, electricity, and petrol. We've actually minimised our grocery spending to 100-120 per week, for the 4 of us, as a sacrifice for education.
I know there a lot of scammers, and I actually knew some, they'd live in a housing commission, in a prime location (because they know someone internally) and yet they own 2 private properties, get disability pension for their elderly parents, unemployment benefit for their kids, etc. It's just feels so unfair, when you try to do the right thing, and you know you are, and instead of feeling good about yourself, you are being accused of "overspending". Many people believe that being in your own business meaning making millions, but in fact our workers are better off than us. And if we closed our business today, there would be at least 3 extra unemployed people, 2 extra kids added to public schooling, and possibly another family in the cue for a public housing.
This is truly tiring, and it really demotivates you as a business owner.

The reason they pay more than they receive is because it costs a lot of money to take it all off you then give it back. There are a lot of people looking over each others' shoulder making sure it is done fairly and none of it is wasted.

Sir lastnail wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 12:06pm:

I can read it alright but can you ? [quote]The latest Tax Office statistics show the average loss per negatively geared investor was $10,950, up from $9130 the year before. The average loss for a high-income negatively geared investor earning more than $180,000 was $23,800. Higher interest rates and rising property prices during 2010-11 swelled the losses. The figures identify negative gearing as one of the key drains on personal tax collections with one in every seven Australian taxpayers now a property investor and one in every 10 negatively geared.

I cant see any mention of 5.5b lost revenue. You were wrong, get over it.

Another Wealfare topic degenerated into name calling by abusive buggerS.

Here is the solution IGNORANTS, Provide Jobs.

KICK down doors and make jobs availably to the job seekers that need them.

Employers out there ( the Ignorants in our society) don't get a choice, they get a person that needs to work.

Make the job fit the job seeker qualifications.

warrigal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 6:54am:

Another Wealfare topic degenerated into name calling by abusive buggerS. Here is the solution IGNORANTS, Provide Jobs. KICK down doors and make jobs availably to the job seekers that need them. Employers out there ( the Ignorants in our society) don't get a choice, they get a person that needs to work. Make the job fit the job seeker qualifications.

They all do.

That's why I started 'Health & Welfare'.

Most of the abusers don't post there (or at least, not abusively) as they know I WILL hand out bans for it.

I think a lot of their attitude comes from fear. They fear they may one day be among the unemployed
but at the same time think they're 'better' than that, so they denigrate.

It's a bit like the black jokes about death common among soldiers in a combat situation, a way of
showing bravado and minimising the object of the fear.

You've noticed that they never have any viable solutions, or suggestions to help, only abuse. Or they'll
rack their brains to think of more punishments or hoops for the unemployed to jump through.

The most offensive of these is payment-quarantining and this stupid 'food-stamps' idea they keep pushing.

degenerated and ended topic then.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e150/ruffdiamond/January%202013/unemployedman_zps907d1592.png

warrigal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 6:54am:

Make the job fit the job seeker qualifications.

Like placing you as head of neuro surgery at a major hospital, not qualified, too bad for everyone else we need to find you a job, any job, competent or not.

Yeah, friggen brilliant plan.

How about you get quaifications suitable for the employment you are seeking, just like the rest of us.


Spend less time whinging and more time adapting.

warrigal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 8:03am:

degenerated and ended topic then.

It’s 8am!!! Get off your arse and go look for a job.

We could always pay people to weave baskets. Then they'd never have to adapt to a new job.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 9:58am:

warrigal wrote on Aug 13th, 2013 at 6:54am: Make the job fit the job seeker qualifications. Like placing you as head of neuro surgery at a major hospital, not qualified, too bad for everyone else we need to find you a job, any job, competent or not. Yeah, friggen brilliant plan. How about you get quaifications suitable for the employment you are seeking, just like the rest of us. Spend less time whinging and more time adapting.

btw what qualifications do you have big hole ?

ian wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 10:20pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 12:06pm: I can read it alright but can you ? [quote]The latest Tax Office statistics show the average loss per negatively geared investor was $10,950, up from $9130 the year before. The average loss for a high-income negatively geared investor earning more than $180,000 was $23,800. Higher interest rates and rising property prices during 2010-11 swelled the losses. The figures identify negative gearing as one of the key drains on personal tax collections with one in every seven Australian taxpayers now a property investor and one in every 10 negatively geared. I cant see any mention of 5.5b lost revenue. You were wrong, get over it.

I got the 13 billion of write downs right didn't I, but using some flowery accountant speak you want to make out that it is nothing :(

just stop ignoring the real issue that negative gearing is a tax avoidance racket. What other investment allows you to claim expenses from a day job that is totally unrelated to the investment whilst owner occupiers have to take it up the arse from over inflated house prices and interest payments because dear old ian thinks it's his god given right to hoard more properties that what he needs to live in :(

Sir lastnail wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 11:32am:

just stop ignoring the real issue that negative gearing is a tax avoidance racket. What other investment allows you to claim expenses from a day job that is totally unrelated to the investment

Shares, pretty much any investment where you take out a loan to invest.


But feel free to rant on.  ;D

warrigal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 6:54am:

Another Wealfare topic degenerated into name calling by abusive buggerS.

You are the most abusive person on this forum. Toughen up princess.


Quote:

Here is the solution IGNORANTS, Provide Jobs. KICK down doors and make jobs availably to the job seekers that need them.

You have never explained why someone who has a job should be out there trying to find a job for you, especially when you have admitted to do nothing to help yourself.

There are 168 hours in a week. To remain healthy you really should be spending at least 50 of them sleeping; maybe getting closer to about 55-60. The little things like showering and having dinner would be about another 10 hours. Many full time workers will spend about 70 hours working during a normal week (38 hours of work, plus getting ready for work, travelling to and from, lunch break, settling in once home, etc) plus at least another 5 or more just with out of work hours emails, letters, phone calls etc. Again, that's a normal week. Chuck in overtime and a high work load and a very busy week could easily be another 10-20 hours on top of that. 

Are you doing the maths? How and why should full time workers be spending time trying to find you a job? I haven't even included, house keeping, shopping, family responsibilities above. When exactly do people have the time (during office hours of all things) to find YOU a job?


Quote:

Employers out there ( the Ignorants in our society) don't get a choice, they get a person that needs to work. Make the job fit the job seeker qualifications.

So if someone who owns a company that makes nuts and bolts, they should employ someone who is trained to be a painter? They should then provided painting opportunities for this person while the nuts and bolts production comes to a halt because they can only no longer afford someone to makes the bolts.

Do you honestly think that makes sense? Do you really not understand that it is not for companies to make jobs to suit people looking for jobs. 

I am disappointed by people on this forum who continuously come to your defence. You are an angry lazy person who refuses to work and is blaming everyone else for your problems. You have shown that you waste your welfare payments on things that you don't need, yet you believe that you should be getting even more ($50,000 a year in fact). You have made it clear that you won't seek training but will only work in a job that suits you and nothing less. You have also made it clear that you refuse to look for work but expect those with jobs to find you a job. Yet still people defend your position. You are the very essence of a dole bludger and a reason as to why the unemployment benefits should never be raised, as it only helps to breed useless leeches like yourself.       

Sir lastnail wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 11:32am:

I got the 13 billion of write downs right didn't I, but using some flowery accountant speak you want to make out that it is nothing :(

No you didnt mate, the 13b is the total loss to investors, not the total loss against housing.

Quote:

just stop ignoring the real issue that negative gearing is a tax avoidance racket. What other investment allows you to claim expenses from a day job that is totally unrelated to the investment whilst owner occupiers have to take it up the arse from over inflated house prices and interest payments because dear old ian thinks it's his god given right to hoard more properties that what he needs to live in :(

I have more concern for the massive welfare bill of 168 b which is clearly being rorted by so many rather than hard working people with actual jobs attempting tio legally minimise tax. If we create  a society which supports the work ethic like we used to have then most of our current financial issues in this country will dissapear. All people like you have is negativity towards the hard workers in our country but nothing against the parasites and free loaders. Australia has become a welfare dependent state, expecting hand outs, free houses the list goes on without any expectation of actually working to acheive these things. thats the real issue.

ian wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 12:17pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Aug 13th, 2013 at 11:32am: I got the 13 billion of write downs right didn't I, but using some flowery accountant speak you want to make out that it is nothing :( No you didnt mate, the 13b is the total loss to investors, not the total loss against housing. .

they are claiming those losses on their day job idiot. The loss to the tax revenue stream is massive !! Stop denying that it is a massive tax evasion scheme :(

Right, their day jobs, their actual jobs where they work for a living. And you must make a loss to claim a loss. Get it?

ian wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 12:48pm:

Right, their day jobs, their actual jobs where they work for a living. And you must make a loss to claim a loss. Get it?

yeh they had to buy some paint to paint their  investment property. Tell me which owner occupier gets those concessions ?

Sir lastnail wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 1:25pm:

ian wrote on Aug 13th, 2013 at 12:48pm: Right, their day jobs, their actual jobs where they work for a living. And you must make a loss to claim a loss. Get it? yeh they had to buy some paint to paint their  investment property. Tell me which owner occupier gets those concessions ?

Which owner occupiers get slapped with CGT ?  I know I wouldn't want it, but since you are one rent payment off being homeless, capital gains on a home you don't own is no biggie I suppose.


Try an easier subject, this one way beyond your limited intellect. Since pillows also seem to baffle you at times, Im suggesting pencils, HB or not 2HB, what was the question?

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 1:32pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Aug 13th, 2013 at 1:25pm: ian wrote on Aug 13th, 2013 at 12:48pm: Right, their day jobs, their actual jobs where they work for a living. And you must make a loss to claim a loss. Get it? yeh they had to buy some paint to paint their  investment property. Tell me which owner occupier gets those concessions ? Which owner occupiers get slapped with CGT ?  I know I wouldn't want it, but since you are one rent payment off being homeless, capital gains on a home you don't own is no biggie I suppose. Try an easier subject, this one way beyond your limited intellect. Since pillows also seem to baffle you at times, Im suggesting pencils, HB or not 2HB, what was the question?

only if they sell of course ;)

they have to pay tax on a profit they gained from doing no work just waiting for a capital gain. My heart bleeds for them  :'(

Sir lastnail wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 2:45pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 13th, 2013 at 1:32pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Aug 13th, 2013 at 1:25pm: ian wrote on Aug 13th, 2013 at 12:48pm: Right, their day jobs, their actual jobs where they work for a living. And you must make a loss to claim a loss. Get it? yeh they had to buy some paint to paint their  investment property. Tell me which owner occupier gets those concessions ? Which owner occupiers get slapped with CGT ?  I know I wouldn't want it, but since you are one rent payment off being homeless, capital gains on a home you don't own is no biggie I suppose. Try an easier subject, this one way beyond your limited intellect. Since pillows also seem to baffle you at times, Im suggesting pencils, HB or not 2HB, what was the question? only if they sell of course ;) they have to pay tax on a profit they gained from doing no work just waiting for a capital gain. My heart bleeds for them  :'(

So will you be recommending CGT be imposed on home owners as well, or you just want to whinge and b1tch about not getting the write offs?



Like I said this subject is way beyond you.

Mnemonic...
Quote:

Social security for everyone, including the rich, is a fair policy.

Wrong.

The rich are never in need of social security for the very good reason their wealth is enough to finance their lifestyle through various investments and leasing of property, etc, etc.

Mnemonic...
Quote:

I just don't like it when the rich complain, because with all the wealth they have, I would think they don't have a reason to complain.

Wrong.

The rich complain when they see Socialist governments under Labor redistributing their wealth to the poor through draconian taxes and levies.

50 businesses go bankrupt in NSW each WEEK because of rental costs for business premises, business taxes and insurance, penalty rates and compensation for 'Mediterranean Back' sending them to the wall.

How many times have we seen stories of early retirees investing all their life savings in a franchise at the local shopping mall, only for this to go bust within a few weeks because the advertising didn't match the reality?

Mnemonic...
Quote:

If you're rich, shut up about your problems because you're doing better than most other people.

I don't agree. You're taking a socialist viewpoint here. If the rich have legitimate complaints, then let's listen to them.

Just ask Bob Jane how easy it was to go from hero to zero in the financial world.

Quantum wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 11:47am:

So if someone who owns a company that makes nuts and bolts, they should employ someone who is trained to be a painter? They should then provided painting opportunities for this person while the nuts and bolts production comes to a halt because they can only no longer afford someone to makes the bolts.

Yeah, that sounds about right, it would even be easier to just give the business to the unemployed to run it, may as well, since the employers don't really get any choice. So assign these employees in charge of everything: paying the rent, resolving customer relations, insurance claims/workers compensation, arranging loans, collecting debt, human resources, any bureaucratic government issues, PAYING TAX! - not to forget: BUYING US OUT FIRST, at their OWN Expense.
Oh no, they don't have the money.
Well, how about that, save it and TRY it when you have the money to buy. Just like we did. SAVED IT, by working hard, saving every bit to start this bloody business!!!
fckrs

The real bludgers exist off insider trading combined with inherited wealth!

It's also known as luck....  bludgers are defined as lucky... but of course we all know that!

;) ;)

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 3:28pm:

Wrong. The rich are never in need of social security for the very good reason their wealth is enough to finance their lifestyle through various investments and leasing of property, etc, etc.

It's not about need, but about keeping an advantage. Social security is like a clock that doesn't stop. It prevents the poor from being "left behind," but also prevents them from catching up to the rich. If everyone gets the same treatment, everyone will more or less stay where they are. The rich will still be rich. The poor will still be poor. The clock doesn't stop ticking for anyone. Nobody goes backwards.

It's not about need, but about stinginess. The rich always want to stay ahead.


Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 3:28pm:

Wrong. The rich complain when they see Socialist governments under Labor redistributing their wealth to the poor through draconian taxes and levies.

Their wealth isn't being redistributed. They are keeping their wealth. Income tax isn't a redistribution of wealth. People with higher gross incomes will always have higher net incomes. Relative inequalities will remain.

Like I have said a number of times in different places, a market-driven system isn't truly objective. Pay grades go up exponentially. An income tax forces the relationship between income and effort/value more or less back into a linear relationship. If people don't like this view, it's because they love money more than the economy itself. If they really cared about the businesses they worked for, they would get a pay cut and stop complaining about taxes.


Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 3:28pm:

50 businesses go bankrupt in NSW each WEEK because of rental costs for business premises, business taxes and insurance, penalty rates and compensation for 'Mediterranean Back' sending them to the wall.

In that case they should cut taxes on businesses and do something about inflated property prices. Allowing people to become rich doesn't actually help the economy anyway. What does help the economy is allowing businesses to become rich.

If I was going to improve the income tax system, I would redirect a portion of income taxes back to the businesses they came from instead of the government -- provided they invest the money in something useful -- like R&D or purchasing capital goods. The government may have less revenue and be poorer, but at least businesses would lose less money.

Surely, a good, loyal employee would love to pay "taxes" to a business rather than a government? :D

Of course, a huge number of people would hate the idea, from all across the spectrum -- from the high-paid Andrei to the low-paid tradesperson. The unions would hate it. Nobody wants a pay cut.


Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 3:28pm:

How many times have we seen stories of early retirees investing all their life savings in a franchise at the local shopping mall, only for this to go bust within a few weeks because the advertising didn't match the reality?

I think they simply made some bad investments there. If they had put their life savings in a bank, this would have been less likely to happen.


Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 3:28pm:

I don't agree. You're taking a socialist viewpoint here.

Is this an attempt to discredit my view? :D

My view is more like "socialism for the people, capitalism for businesses." That's the way I think it should be. Allowing people to become rich doesn't help the economy. If they lose their job, they should receive the bare minimum required to find another job. Social security doesn't help people become rich, so that's fine with me.

In the meantime, the income tax system should be fixed so that a portion of it goes back to the business if it promises to invest it in something useful. Gross income should just be an ego-booster that says, "Mate, you did a good job there." It shouldn't mean the employee gets to keep the money. Company taxes should be cut for domestically-owned businesses -- ideally right down to zero. R&D and the purchase of capital goods should be subsidised to encourage innovation.

Basically for me, people shouldn't be rich. Businesses should be rich. In an efficient economy, the majority of people are poor and firms are bristling with activity and their coffers are full.


Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 3:28pm:

If the rich have legitimate complaints, then let's listen to them.

I've been listening to their complaints and most of them are for personal gain and self-benefit, not for the benefit of the businesses they serve. It's the "all about me" attitude.


Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 3:28pm:

Just ask Bob Jane how easy it was to go from hero to zero in the financial world.

Zero? Bob-Jane T-Mart's seems to be doing fine under his son.

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 3:28pm:

Wrong. The rich complain when they see Socialist governments under Labor redistributing their wealth to the poor through draconian taxes and levies.

As for "socialism" under Labor, I think that's a misplaced label. Governments appealing to people's selfishness isn't "socialism," because socialism is about making sacrifices for collective gain. Like U.S. President John F. Kennedy said, "Think not what your country can do for you, but think what you can do for your country." Social security is one of those sacrifices. It's not a redistribution of wealth because if it was, there wouldn't be rich and poor to speak of in this country. "Wealth redistribution" is just an argument people often use to scare people into thinking that society is under the shadow of some fictitious socialist demon that has our worst interests in mind.

There is no socialism here. Wealth is not being redistributed. Income tax is not wealth redistribution. It's just there to fix the curve in the relationship between income and effort/value -- and higher gross income earners always have a higher net income.

Getting back to what we were talking about, social security isn't wealth redistribution -- not if everyone, including the rich, get it. If nobody is better or worse off, that means that no wealth redistribution is happening. The socialist conspiracy is the rich man's, not the poor man's favourite fantasy, because if it really happened, it would justify the rich man's propaganda.

If socialism was really happening, the rich man wouldn't be rich anymore.

Quote:

Like I have said a number of times in different places, a market-driven system isn't truly objective.

What is?

freediver wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 7:19pm:

What is?

It's not so much a question of "is there anything better?" The problem is people thinking they deserve every single dollar they get in their gross income.

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 3:28pm:

Wrong. The rich are never in need of social security for the very good reason their wealth is enough to finance their lifestyle through various investments and leasing of property, etc, etc.

Mnemonic wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 6:47pm:

It's not about need, but about keeping an advantage.

Nope. It's all about maintaining a basic living standard despite not receiving an income from a job. Period.


Mnemonic wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 6:47pm:

Their wealth isn't being redistributed.

Wrong. The higher taxes for the rich (49% in some cases) are redistributed by the government through Centrelink to finance welfare payments for the lower socio-economic groups.


Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 3:28pm:

50 businesses go bankrupt in NSW each WEEK because of rental costs for business premises, business taxes and insurance, penalty rates and compensation for 'Mediterranean Back' sending them to the wall.

Mnemonic wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 6:47pm:

In that case they should cut taxes on businesses and do something about inflated property prices. Allowing people to become rich doesn't actually help the economy anyway. What does help the economy is allowing businesses to become rich.

Wow. You're a full-blown communist aren't you? What you're advocating here is exactly, and precisely, and ideologically what communism was saying when it first started in Russia.

And it was precisely because no private person was allowed to get rich, that the entire country lived in dire poverty until communism was finally ditched.



Mnemonic wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 6:47pm:

Surely, a good, loyal employee would love to pay "taxes" to a business rather than a government?

Now I KNOW you're joking.

During the entire Industrial revolution in the UK, the poor buggers who worked in the factories and in the mines had to buy all of their needs from shops run by the companies they worked for.

Result: Their wages were ripped right back off the employees at the company shops ~ leaving them with little more than slave wages for a beer or two on a night off.


Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 3:28pm:

How many times have we seen stories of early retirees investing all their life savings in a franchise at the local shopping mall, only for this to go bust within a few weeks because the advertising didn't match the reality?

Mnemonic wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 6:47pm:

I think they simply made some bad investments there.

Not quite. Many are given false statistics as to the expected income of certain businesses in the local shopping areas.


Mnemonic wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 6:47pm:

If they had put their life savings in a bank, this would have been less likely to happen.

um ... yes. Well spotted.

It amazes me how many otherwise sensible and hard-working people will put all their financial eggs in the one basket, close to or in their retirement years, buying up a franchise to sell ice cream, or cut keys, or sell bric-a-brac ... and then soon to be seen weeping on ACA or This Day Tonight because there weren't enough customers to sustain the business. And they're forced to live in a caravan park.

Stupidity carries its own punishment.


Mnemonic wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 6:47pm:

My view is more like "socialism for the people, capitalism for businesses." That's the way I think it should be. Allowing people to become rich doesn't help the economy

.

That's Economic Marxism. State-controlled businesses allowed to generate capital for the State coffers ... while the peasants remain on subsistence wages.

My Russian aunt who I lived with for 4 years as a boy, escaped across Siberia to get away from the horrors of Stalin's dictatorship.

What did you mean by "objective"?

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 9:08pm:

Nope. It's all about maintaining a basic living standard despite not receiving an income from a job. Period.

So what's the problem then?


Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 9:08pm:

Wrong. The higher taxes for the rich (49% in some cases) are redistributed by the government through Centrelink to finance welfare payments for the lower socio-economic groups.

Higher taxes for higher incomes is a way to reshape the exponential relationship between income and effort/value back into a linear one. Relative inequalities remain.

5.5% unemployed people out of a population of 23 million receiving Newstart allowance at $500 per fortnight works out to be $16.5 billion per year. GDP is about $1.372 trillion, so CentreLink payments are only 1% of GDP. That isn't much.

People who have a job are still better off than people without one. Where's the wealth redistribution? If a system preserves relative inequalities, there is no wealth redistribution.


Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 9:08pm:

Wow. You're a full-blown communist aren't you? What you're advocating here is exactly, and precisely, and ideologically what communism was saying when it first started in Russia.

How is it communism? You started talking about businesses going broke. You either help businesses or you help people get rich. I am surprised at your response. Initially you tell me I'm socialist for saying that social security is a good thing (helping the people). Now you tell me I'm "communist" for coming up with a scheme that would help businesses. I thought being pro-business was the opposite of communist. Where did I go wrong?


Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 9:08pm:

And it was precisely because no private person was allowed to get rich, that the entire country lived in dire poverty until communism was finally ditched.

Huge numbers of people were already poor in Russia. The communists simply failed to change that. That was the legacy of serfdom and feudalism, which the Russians hoped to change through revolution.

Most people had less than what they needed in Russia. They were below the poverty line. That is in huge contrast to what we have here in Australia, where most people already have what they need, but they don't have what they want. Most Australians are above the poverty line. Your analogy doesn't fit.

In Russia, under the Soviets there were no markets. It was a planned economy. There's a huge difference.


Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 9:08pm:

During the entire Industrial revolution in the UK, the poor buggers who worked in the factories and in the mines had to buy all of their needs from shops run by the companies they worked for. Result: Their wages were ripped right back off the employees at the company shops ~ leaving them with little more than slave wages for a beer or two on a night off.

How is slave labour communism?

These people weren't saved by capitalism. They were saved by the unions. Workers got together and refused to work. They forced employers to pay them more by striking. Collective action drove wages up. You're blaming communism for poverty in countries where communism never existed. Communism never took hold in the UK. I don't know why you'd be talking about the UK if you wanted to talk about communism. Maybe the USSR but not the UK.

When we buy cheap products made in sweat shops in China, is that communism? I thought it was free trade and globalisation (ie. market-driven capitalism). :D


Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 9:08pm:

That's Economic Marxism. State-controlled businesses allowed to generate capital for the State coffers ...

I didn't say anything about state-controlled businesses. Businesses are still part of the market. There is no planned economy. Capital doesn't flow to the government (ie. state coffers), but back to the businesses. A portion of income tax will be redirected back to businesses if they invest it in something useful (like giving subsidies or tax cuts).

Under the current system, if an employee receives $100k from company X in gross income, income tax takes away $47k and the employee only gets $53k. The $47k goes to the government and never comes back except through indirect means like tax cuts and subsidies.

What I was suggesting was a "conditional income tax." Instead of the whole $47k going to the government, company X can recover some of that income tax by making some approved investments, like R&D and the purchase of capital goods. The result is that company X loses less of its money and has more opportunities for investment and expansion. The government, on the other hand, loses some potential revenue. The general population in the meantime, is no worse off than before.


Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 9:08pm:

... while the peasants remain on subsistence wages.

Well, like I said, most Australians are above the poverty line. There aren't going to be any peasants here. Higher income taxes on higher income earners and lower or zero income tax on low income earners isn't going to create poverty if most people are already above the poverty line.

We live in a developed country. Life here is much better than in Calcutta or Somalia, but we don't need to live like kings.

You keep talking about 'inequalities' as though there's something 'unfair' and unethical about a government that allows for these 'inequalities' of wealth among people.

With this you're hinting at being a communist again.

I personally am totally supportive of people who study their arse off at university in order to gain a degree in a well-paid profession.

I'm totally supportive of parents who manage their finances properly so their kids can get a better education at a private school.

If the result at age 26 or so means the sons and daughters of the parents who made sacrifices are ontrack for a better paid career than the sons and daughters of parents who smoked and drank, and whose home culture was all about 'Footy' ~  then nobody should be crying 'FOUL!' because of this ... 'inequality.

My aunt and her parents were given 10 minutes to gather up all that they could from their farm house, before then being pushed out onto a dirt road by men on horses.

The communists didn't think it was 'fair' or 'equitable' that they owned a small subsistence farm while others were only farm labourers.

Socialism is all about petulance and jealousy towards others having improved their circumstances a little better than the lazy ones.   

Mnemonic ~ I want to see a marked improvement in your attitude. I can see you've been heavily influenced by leftwing ideologies that believe in 'equal outcomes' for all - no matter if the efforts from each has been vastly different.

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 8:16am:

You keep talking about 'inequalities' as though there's something 'unfair' and unethical about a government that allows for these 'inequalities' of wealth among people.

I don't know where I said "inequalities" were "unfair" and "unethical." I said that the system preserves relative inequalities and was therefore not a redistribution of wealth. People with higher gross incomes still end up with higher net incomes. They retain their advantage. It makes me wonder if you actually read my whole post because you seem to be putting words in my mouth. I said nothing of the sort. I think you're arguing against a straw man here.

Wealth accumulation makes an economy inefficient. That's what I did say.

I said it was good for everyone to get social security (even the rich), because I know how stingy some rich people can be. They don't like the idea of the poor catching up to them. They don't like paying taxes. They don't like people getting something for free. Like I said, it preserves relative inequalities. It preserves their advantage. I said that as a response both to their stinginess, as well as a response to you labeling me a "communist." I hope that clarifies things.

I'm not the least bit interested in the inequalities. What I am interested in is efficiency. If people want to become rich and always want the most pay, they become more expensive as workers and employees. It's the reason why Australia can't compete with developing countries on labour costs and with manufacturing. If everyone got a pay cut, we could start competing again. We are a high-cost economy.


Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 8:16am:

I personally am totally supportive of people who study their arse off at university in order to gain a degree in a well-paid profession. I'm totally supportive of parents who manage their finances properly so their kids can get a better education at a private school. If the result at age 26 or so means the sons and daughters of the parents who made sacrifices are ontrack for a better paid career than the sons and daughters of parents who smoked and drank then nobody should be crying 'FOUL!' because of this ... 'inequality.

Me too -- except maybe for the private school part. If your kids are smart and they are willing to work hard, going to a good public school is just as good. I don't support the classism often associated with private education. If you don't send them to a private school, you save money.


Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 8:16am:

Socialism is all about petulance and jealousy towards others having improved their circumstances a little better than the lazy ones.

I disagree. That's what I used to think, but then I learnt that I was just ignorant about what socialism actually was. I was fed the propaganda that socialism, a close relative of communism, was about people being paid the same and that it was about a society that didn't reward effort with incentives. What happened in the Soviet Union was definitely communism, but it wasn't socialism.

I found an article on the life of Karl Marx somewhere, but can't remember where. Maybe it was in a magazine while I was visiting my doctor. I read about his disgust with the "bourgeoisie" and the accumulation of wealth and private property. At the time, it didn't really register. I just put it aside and thought, yeah I still think socialism is bad. The anti-socialist propaganda persisted in me. I continued to believe what most people thought on this side of the former Cold War factions (the U.S. side).

Then the 2008 financial crisis struck. Too many Americans were getting home loans and mortgages, even people who were unemployed. Too many people wanted to be rich. They got into debt thinking they could get through it all and everything would be ok. They did it because everyone else was doing it. Their friends were doing it. Their family was doing it. It was a culture of "keeping up with the Jones's."

When everyone is trying to be rich, they drag the economy down with them. Karl Marx had a point.


Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 8:16am:

Mnemonic ~ I want to see a marked improvement in your attitude. I can see you've been heavily influenced by leftwing ideologies that believe in 'equal outcomes' for all - no matter if the efforts from each has been vastly different.

Again, I think you're arguing against a straw man here. I don't know where I talked about "equal outcomes for all." What I did say was that income tax changes an exponentially increasing curve in the relationship between "income" and "effort/value" back into a linear one. You do know what I mean by exponential and linear relationships don't you? A linear relationship implies proportional, not equal outcomes. Remember the maths you learnt in high school and university?

Linear: y = mx + c                 >> a straight line increasing at a constant rate
Exponential: y = e^x + c       >> a curve that increases faster and faster as x increases

If I was talking about equal outcomes then it would be a linear equation where m = 0: a constant relationship, but I am talking about a case where m > 0: a proportional relationship.

Mnemonic wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 12:42pm:

Me too -- except maybe for the private school part. If your kids are smart and they are willing to work hard, going to a good public school is just as good. I don't support the classism often associated with private education. If you don't send them to a private school, you save money.

I am sorry, and who are you to decide what would be better or not for a particular child?
You assumption that all children are the same and hence should all be ok in a public school is at least exaggerated, and I agree with Herbert, smells of communism. I actually don't know whether that should be referred to as communism or totalitarianism/authoritarianism.
You can't possibly throw everyone in the one plate, you won't get great results.
I thought a bit better of you, actually

Mnemonic wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 12:42pm:

Wealth accumulation makes an economy inefficient. That's what I did say.

Unfortunately you did say that.

The 'wealth accumulation' of private individuals and privately owned industries has allowed the West to leave all the others far behind.

Rich people develop new industries which employ thousands of people who don't risk their savings on risky investments such as the rich are willing to do.

The rich are constantly risking their fortunes on property development, niche opportunity investments, venture capital investments, etc etc.

How many times have I heard a boss say "I wish I could work the same hours as you blokes do".

Without these risk-takers this would be a Third World Country.

By removing the motivation and the means for creating personal wealth ~ you soon reduce a nation's economy to a subsistence level.

My friend did a tour of Russia while it was still communist. At around 11.30am the group was shown through a huge factory where it was noticed that the workers were all smoking or eating while sitting next to their machines.

To cut to the chase ~ it wasn't a meal break of any sort. They had finished their Moscow-planned quota for the day. 


Mnemonic wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 12:42pm:

I don't support the classism often associated with private education.

Your mask has slipped again.

Here again we see you in the role of petulant leftwinger who is aggrieved that others might be stealing a march on the working classes because they've made personal sacrifices and efforts to rise above the mob.

Leftwingers such as yourself become peeved when others pull ahead of the hoi polloi through sheer hard work, self-discipline, and personal sacrifice.

A private education offers a much more broad and wide-ranging learning experience for the student. It's the extras and the add-ons that hone young intellects and characters to a fine edge that public schools have neither the funds nor the teaching talent to offer.

Get rid of that chip on your shoulder, Mn!  

Stop the 'Tall Poppy' whinging!

If people appear to be of a better class than you ~ then SUCK IT UP, dude! At least you'll never be out of a job for as long as you can polish their boots and chauffeur them around town.

Sheesh. Some people.

I'm hoping Lady Mantra here will eventually give me a chauffeuring job as in 'Driving Miss Daisy'.  8-)

(Yes, I'll wear 'black-face' if that's what she insists upon... )

Sure, there's a place and demand for private education,  but it shouldn't receive any government funding apart from perhaps start up assistance.

Torpedo wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:29pm:

I am sorry, and who are you to decide what would be better or not for a particular child? You assumption that all children are the same and hence should all be ok in a public school is at least exaggerated.

I never actually said that. I said I was against classism. That isn't the same as saying "all children are the same." I said that if your child was smart, they didn't need a private school education. People aren't smarter because they get a private school education. If they're smart, they don't need one. Private schools are for people who want or need extra help. It's a brute force approach to education.

I said absolutely nothing about everyone being the same. Where did that come from? Quote me if I did.


Torpedo wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:29pm:

I actually don't know whether that should be referred to as communism

Never mind. If you don't have the time to read history books, that's ok. It's a busy world.


Torpedo wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:29pm:

or totalitarianism/authoritarianism.

How was anything I said totalitarianism and authoritarianism? I never said anything about people being forced to do anything.


Torpedo wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:29pm:

You can't possibly throw everyone in the one plate, you won't get great results.

I didn't do anything of the sort.


Torpedo wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:29pm:

I thought a bit better of you, actually

Once again, people are putting words into my mouth.

Life_goes_on wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 2:38pm:

Sure, there's a place and demand for private education,  but it shouldn't receive any government funding apart from perhaps start up assistance.

start up assistance? I don't think private schools are getting any more than public schools do, but the reality is, some parents want to save on education, some don't, those who want to bring our society's IQ levels should be praised, not punished, those of them who want to save, well, it's their choice.
I.e.: there is public school getting 30% government support, and there is private school equally getting 30%. Removing the 30% from private isn't going to improve public, IT WON'T!!! but it will diminish the demand in private, reducing jobs, making it harder for parents, and throwing good kids into zoo!!! what's so hard to understand, how is it going to help public education, or our society?

Mnemonic wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 2:54pm:

II said that if your child was smart, they didn't need a private school education. People aren't smarter because they get a private school education.

you know, there is a strong theory, that if Einstein's parents didn't push hard enough for his education, he wouldn't become what he became

And then again, I knew a boy in our school who was clearly talented in many areas, but was so browbeaten by the bullies, that he just became apathetic towards any progress. You never know, he could have become great chemist who'd find the solution for cancer or aids.
But, alas, his parents didn't care

Life_goes_on wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 2:38pm:

Sure, there's a place and demand for private education,  but it shouldn't receive any government funding apart from perhaps start up assistance.

Moot point.

Some will say 'Yay' and some will say 'Nay'.

I don't like religious schools getting any funding from the taxpayers ~ especially Islamic schools where kids born in Australia are carefully tutored in the cultural traditions and heritage of the Middle Eastern character and identity.   

To support such a non-assimilist and alienating program for Australian-born children under the aegis of an 'Islamic education' would seem to me to be utterly self-defeating from the point of view of wanting our own culture and our own heritage to be securely guaranteed for the foreseeable future.

Torpedo wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:29pm:

I thought a bit better of you, actually

Me too.

I was building this great big statue in my mind of Mnemonic, when it all started to crumble and break up as I began to realise he wants us all to wear a one-size-fits-all gray shapeless smock, not too unlike a burqa.

This way there's NO evidence of classism on display, and the Filthy Rich look just as impoverished as the ... er ... impoverishd.

He's SUCH a disappointment to us, Torpedo. Perhaps even to his parents? His dog? Cat?  8-)

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 8:16am:

You keep talking about 'inequalities' as though there's something 'unfair' and unethical about a government that allows for these 'inequalities' of wealth among people. With this you're hinting at being a communist again. I personally am totally supportive of people who study their arse off at university in order to gain a degree in a well-paid profession. I'm totally supportive of parents who manage their finances properly so their kids can get a better education at a private school. If the result at age 26 or so means the sons and daughters of the parents who made sacrifices are ontrack for a better paid career than the sons and daughters of parents who smoked and drank, and whose home culture was all about 'Footy' ~  then nobody should be crying 'FOUL!' because of this ... 'inequality. My aunt and her parents were given 10 minutes to gather up all that they could from their farm house, before then being pushed out onto a dirt road by men on horses. The communists didn't think it was 'fair' or 'equitable' that they owned a small subsistence farm while others were only farm labourers. Socialism is all about petulance and jealousy towards others having improved their circumstances a little better than the lazy ones.   Mnemonic ~ I want to see a marked improvement in your attitude. I can see you've been heavily influenced by leftwing ideologies that believe in 'equal outcomes' for all - no matter if the efforts from each has been vastly different.

Um, it's quite apparent that you are a lazy thinker: smoke crack much mr hardcore?

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 2:26pm:

The 'wealth accumulation' of private individuals and privately owned industries has allowed the West to leave all the others far behind. Rich people develop new industries which employ thousands of people who don't risk their savings on risky investments such as the rich are willing to do. The rich are constantly risking their fortunes on property development, niche opportunity investments, venture capital investments, etc etc. How many times have I heard a boss say "I wish I could work the same hours as you blokes do". Without these risk-takers this would be a Third World Country.

I didn't say I was absolutely against private property. I did say it was good for businesses to be rich. That meant accumulation of private property. Obviously for people "individually," everyone needs some privacy and peace and quiet. I think some people just go too far with their "wealth accumulation."

Wealth accumulation is fine as long as it's sustainable and achievable. As long as there is plenty of energy and resources to go around, there is room for growth. Competitive capitalism worked in the past because supply was able to keep up with demand.

That is no longer the case with 7 billion people on this planet and where there is free trade and globalisation. Economies can't keep growing. We can't keep accumulating wealth because there are too many people on this planet. If they all had to have the same lifestyle as those of us living in developed countries, it would cause a lot of pollution and environmental damage. We can't expect China to keep churning out those cheap products and blow smog into the air so that we can have comfortable lives.

Supplies of crude oil will not last forever. The world reached "peak oil" several years ago. Supply could not keep up with demand. Changing to renewable energy isn't going to help. Producing bio-diesel requires additional farmland. Solar panels only produce energy during the day. Wind power is not constant. Once our supplies of coal and crude oil run out, green energy will not sustain our civilisation at the same level.

When that happens, we are going to need to learn to share and co-operate rather than competing. It takes much more energy to compete, to out-do your competitors than to co-operate, whether it is in business or war. It's fun to compete, but one day the party is going to be over.

But getting back to the present, the problem we are having now is a manufacturing industry that can't compete against low-cost alternatives overseas. Every now and then there is talk of Indians and Chinese taking jobs because they are "cheap" and are willing to receive less pay for the same amount of work. A culture of wealth accumulation prevents people from receiving less pay for the same amount of work. This same culture prevents us from lowering the cost of our employees and workers and therefore making our industries competitive with overseas alternatives.

Whether it's about saving energy/resources to enjoy our modern civilisation for as long as possible or in the short-term to compete with other countries economically, it's the same concept. It is getting more and more counter-productive these days to get rich because of the emerging economic reality: globalisation and too many people on this planet.

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 2:26pm:

Mnemonic wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 12:42pm: Wealth accumulation makes an economy inefficient. That's what I did say. Unfortunately you did say that. The 'wealth accumulation' of private individuals and privately owned industries has allowed the West to leave all the others far behind. Rich people develop new industries which employ thousands of people who don't risk their savings on risky investments such as the rich are willing to do. The rich are constantly risking their fortunes on property development, niche opportunity investments, venture capital investments, etc etc. How many times have I heard a boss say "I wish I could work the same hours as you blokes do". Without these risk-takers this would be a Third World Country. By removing the motivation and the means for creating personal wealth ~ you soon reduce a nation's economy to a subsistence level. My friend did a tour of Russia while it was still communist. At around 11.30am the group was shown through a huge factory where it was noticed that the workers were all smoking or eating while sitting next to their machines. To cut to the chase ~ it wasn't a meal break of any sort. They had finished their Moscow-planned quota for the day.  Mnemonic wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 12:42pm: I don't support the classism often associated with private education. Your mask has slipped again. Here again we see you in the role of petulant leftwinger who is aggrieved that others might be stealing a march on the working classes because they've made personal sacrifices and efforts to rise above the mob. Leftwingers such as yourself become peeved when others pull ahead of the hoi polloi through sheer hard work, self-discipline, and personal sacrifice. A private education offers a much more broad and wide-ranging learning experience for the student. It's the extras and the add-ons that hone young intellects and characters to a fine edge that public schools have neither the funds nor the teaching talent to offer. Get rid of that chip on your shoulder, Mn!   Stop the 'Tall Poppy' whinging! If people appear to be of a better class than you ~ then SUCK IT UP, dude! At least you'll never be out of a job for as long as you can polish their boots and chauffeur them around town. Sheesh. Some people. I'm hoping Lady Mantra here will eventually give me a chauffeuring job as in 'Driving Miss Daisy'.  8-) (Yes, I'll wear 'black-face' if that's what she insists upon... )

In red I agree with: but then you go on to forget that mnemeonic was talking about inefficiency of economy.

Wealth accumulation implies lack of re-investment in the economy- i.e. net loss of efficiency resulting in paper tigers/bubbles/false wealth/the american dream-time brudda!!

http://www.protonpublishinghouse.com/image/The-Decay-of-the-American-1.jpg http://www.protonpublishinghouse.com/image/The-Decay-of-the-American-1.jpg http://www.protonpublishinghouse.com/image/The-Decay-of-the-American-1.jpg http://www.protonpublishinghouse.com/image/The-Decay-of-the-American-1.jpg


The only true value comes from work- the problem is stock market speculation whereby inherited wealth supports people via insider trading knowledge from the ever dwindling upper crust ==> read: it's unsustainable!

nothing grows exponentially!!

The rate of change of an exponential curve is itself exponential- stop smoking crack herbert: change is the only constant!

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 2:26pm:

Mnemonic wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 12:42pm: Wealth accumulation makes an economy inefficient. That's what I did say. Unfortunately you did say that. The 'wealth accumulation' of private individuals and privately owned industries has allowed the West to leave all the others far behind. Rich people develop new industries which employ thousands of people who don't risk their savings on risky investments such as the rich are willing to do. The rich are constantly risking their fortunes on property development, niche opportunity investments, venture capital investments, etc etc. How many times have I heard a boss say "I wish I could work the same hours as you blokes do". Without these risk-takers this would be a Third World Country. By removing the motivation and the means for creating personal wealth ~ you soon reduce a nation's economy to a subsistence level. My friend did a tour of Russia while it was still communist. At around 11.30am the group was shown through a huge factory where it was noticed that the workers were all smoking or eating while sitting next to their machines. To cut to the chase ~ it wasn't a meal break of any sort. They had finished their Moscow-planned quota for the day.  Mnemonic wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 12:42pm: I don't support the classism often associated with private education. Your mask has slipped again. Here again we see you in the role of petulant leftwinger who is aggrieved that others might be stealing a march on the working classes because they've made personal sacrifices and efforts to rise above the mob. Leftwingers such as yourself become peeved when others pull ahead of the hoi polloi through sheer hard work, self-discipline, and personal sacrifice. A private education offers a much more broad and wide-ranging learning experience for the student. It's the extras and the add-ons that hone young intellects and characters to a fine edge that public schools have neither the funds nor the teaching talent to offer. Get rid of that chip on your shoulder, Mn!   Stop the 'Tall Poppy' whinging! If people appear to be of a better class than you ~ then SUCK IT UP, dude! At least you'll never be out of a job for as long as you can polish their boots and chauffeur them around town. Sheesh. Some people. I'm hoping Lady Mantra here will eventually give me a chauffeuring job as in 'Driving Miss Daisy'.  8-) (Yes, I'll wear 'black-face' if that's what she insists upon... )

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 9:08pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 13th, 2013 at 3:28pm: Wrong. The rich are never in need of social security for the very good reason their wealth is enough to finance their lifestyle through various investments and leasing of property, etc, etc. Mnemonic wrote on Aug 13th, 2013 at 6:47pm: It's not about need, but about keeping an advantage. Nope. It's all about maintaining a basic living standard despite not receiving an income from a job. Period. Mnemonic wrote on Aug 13th, 2013 at 6:47pm: Their wealth isn't being redistributed. Wrong. The higher taxes for the rich (49% in some cases) are redistributed by the government through Centrelink to finance welfare payments for the lower socio-economic groups. Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 13th, 2013 at 3:28pm: 50 businesses go bankrupt in NSW each WEEK because of rental costs for business premises, business taxes and insurance, penalty rates and compensation for 'Mediterranean Back' sending them to the wall. Mnemonic wrote on Aug 13th, 2013 at 6:47pm: In that case they should cut taxes on businesses and do something about inflated property prices. Allowing people to become rich doesn't actually help the economy anyway. What does help the economy is allowing businesses to become rich. Wow. You're a full-blown communist aren't you? What you're advocating here is exactly, and precisely, and ideologically what communism was saying when it first started in Russia. And it was precisely because no private person was allowed to get rich, that the entire country lived in dire poverty until communism was finally ditched. Mnemonic wrote on Aug 13th, 2013 at 6:47pm: Surely, a good, loyal employee would love to pay "taxes" to a business rather than a government? Now I KNOW you're joking. During the entire Industrial revolution in the UK, the poor buggers who worked in the factories and in the mines had to buy all of their needs from shops run by the companies they worked for. Result: Their wages were ripped right back off the employees at the company shops ~ leaving them with little more than slave wages for a beer or two on a night off. Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 13th, 2013 at 3:28pm: How many times have we seen stories of early retirees investing all their life savings in a franchise at the local shopping mall, only for this to go bust within a few weeks because the advertising didn't match the reality? Mnemonic wrote on Aug 13th, 2013 at 6:47pm: I think they simply made some bad investments there. Not quite. Many are given false statistics as to the expected income of certain businesses in the local shopping areas. Mnemonic wrote on Aug 13th, 2013 at 6:47pm: If they had put their life savings in a bank, this would have been less likely to happen. um ... yes. Well spotted. It amazes me how many otherwise sensible and hard-working people will put all their financial eggs in the one basket, close to or in their retirement years, buying up a franchise to sell ice cream, or cut keys, or sell bric-a-brac ... and then soon to be seen weeping on ACA or This Day Tonight because there weren't enough customers to sustain the business. And they're forced to live in a caravan park. Stupidity carries its own punishment. Mnemonic wrote on Aug 13th, 2013 at 6:47pm: My view is more like "socialism for the people, capitalism for businesses." That's the way I think it should be. Allowing people to become rich doesn't help the economy . That's Economic Marxism. State-controlled businesses allowed to generate capital for the State coffers ... while the peasants remain on subsistence wages. My Russian aunt who I lived with for 4 years as a boy, escaped across Siberia to get away from the horrors of Stalin's dictatorship.

I think you might be a 'revisionist' too, Mn.

Since we found out your political hankering for a society that doesn't tolerate class differences, and that frowns upon individual capital enterprises, or the private schooling of society's moneyed elite ~ we can only surmise that you've been reading WAY too many books on economic theory from a socialist perspective.

Jesus Christ had the same lack of understanding of how wealth is generated as you do.

He threw the money-lenders out of the temple. Big mistake. Okay, so he was only a humble carpenter and didn't know any better ~ but today we DO know better.

It's the same in the Muslim countries today ~ bank loans without interest. Result: The Middle Eastern countries remain charity cases to Western Foreign Aid ~ DESPITE them floating on oil.

They've finally arrived, Lady Mantra. A little late, but they're here now.

The Invasion of the Dreaded One-Liners ~ (coming to a cinema near you shortly).

Can I tell you, Mnemonic ~ the worst bosses I ever met during my working life were not those at the top ~ but those at the bottom.

The ones at the top had too much class to behave towards the rank and file like bastards.

The arseholes were the lance corporals and the corporals amongst us.

Something like the 'capo' in Hitler's extermination camps. 

Give your own kind a tiny weeny bit of authority over their former peers ~ and they go feral with savagery. Seen it many times.

Your 'egalitarian' Workers Paradise was always a myth, and will always be a myth.

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 4:29pm:

I think you might be a 'revisionist' too, Mn. Since we found out your political hankering for a society that doesn't tolerate class differences, and that frowns upon individual capital enterprises, or the private schooling of society's moneyed elite ~ we can only surmise that you've been reading WAY too many books on economic theory from a socialist perspective. Jesus Christ had the same lack of understanding of how wealth is generated as you do. He threw the money-lenders out of the temple. Big mistake. Okay, so he was only a humble carpenter and didn't know any better ~ but today we DO know better. It's the same in the Muslim countries today ~ bank loans without interest. Result: The Middle Eastern countries remain charity cases to Western Foreign Aid ~ DESPITE them floating on oil.

Dear Herbert: government is a social construction==> free-markets are an idea that exist in ones head!

The idea(repeat FOR THE CRACK SMOKERS, 'IDEA') of free-markets can only be implemented through regulation otherwise you have cowboys killing all their customers,.. but actually those cowboys wouldn't even have quality tools to work(read MATERIALS SCIENCE) with in the first so  :o :o :o :o :o you're tripping dood trying to tell us free-markets rule the world!

Economc theory is flawed simply because it can't entertain externalities as they become too expensive- hence the import of the tax-payer!

NICE TRY THOUGH  :o :o :o :o  :-?  :-* :-*

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 4:40pm:

Can I tell you, Mnemonic ~ the worst bosses I ever met during my working life were not those at the top ~ but those at the bottom. The ones at the top had too much class to behave towards the rank and file like bastards. The arseholes were the lance corporals and the corporals amongst us. Something like the 'capo' in Hitler's extermination camps.  Give your own kind a tiny weeny bit of authority over their former peers ~ and they go feral with savagery. Seen it many times. Your 'egalitarian' Workers Paradise was always a myth, and will always be a myth.

The ones at the top were taught aloofness from the farm: the large families and the boarding schools and all that there brudda!

You're not going over anyones head mate!

  :-[ :-[

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e150/ruffdiamond/January%202013/vintage-closed-sign_zpsb724ea9c.gif


High Class is here to stay. WE ain't goin' away anytime soon, buddy!

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e150/ruffdiamond/January%202013/2296232-535867-thirsty-high-class-chihuahua-having-a-drink-from-a-straw-and-glass_zps83db412c.jpg

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 5:01pm:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e150/ruffdiamond/January%202013/vintage-closed-sign_zpsb724ea9c.gif

Black and White : the good old 1950s is it??

Oh yeh, they were the golden years ay bro!  :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 2:26pm:

By removing the motivation and the means for creating personal wealth ~ you soon reduce a nation's economy to a subsistence level.

I never said anything about removing the motivation for accumulating wealth. If people want wealth, they can go after it. In fact, if you cut someone's pay, they'll work harder for longer. Carrot and stick.

We buy cheap products from China. What can I say? The Chinese just keeping working, working and working because they expect to make it in the end. The West has lost its stamina. It lost it way back in the 19th century when the Chinese built the Transcontinental Railway in the USA.

The problem is when wealth accumulation is all people do. That's despite the fact that most Australians are above the poverty line. Ever heard of the contrast between "live to work" and "work to live?" That's what I'm talking about. Getting rich doesn't have to be the reason why you go to work each day. Can't you just do it because you love your job?


Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 2:26pm:

A private education offers a much more broad and wide-ranging learning experience for the student. It's the extras and the add-ons .......

A private education doesn't automatically make you "smart." It is not a silver bullet or magic wand for success. The student still needs to have the "innate ability" to learn and perform. A person isn't "smart" because they had a private education. It's a combination of their innate ability and the experience they get from a private school.

If someone says they're better than someone else because they went to private school, they're suggesting they're better than everyone who didn't go to private school. That's classism. It's wrong, not because someone is jealous, but because it isn't actually true. It's a person's innate ability that is the primary driver of success, not their just experience. Getting a "good education" is great, but you still need the "innate ability" to perform.


Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 2:26pm:

........... that hone young intellects and characters to a fine edge that public schools have neither the funds nor the teaching talent to offer.

If you think there was no character building in my public school, you are gravely mistaken. We had plenty of that, to the point where it became patronising.


Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 2:26pm:

Your mask has slipped again. Here again we see you in the role of petulant leftwinger who is aggrieved that others might be stealing a march on the working classes because they've made personal sacrifices and efforts to rise above the mob. Leftwingers such as yourself become peeved when others pull ahead of the hoi polloi through sheer hard work, self-discipline, and personal sacrifice.

There you go again with the straw man argument!

All I said was "classism," and now you start talking about people getting ahead in life? Where did that come from? You are definitely arguing against a straw man here!

You then talked about fictitious fears of people getting ahead through hard work. That's despite the fact that in the paragraph you were responding to, I was talking about the same thing: hard work. The difference was that I said that if a person was smart and worked hard, they wouldn't need to go to private school. Their own innate ability would ensure their success.

If you could know in advance that you had a smart kid, paying for a more expensive education is an unnecessary sacrifice. If you were a smart kid looking back and you went to a public school, you'd know that. Of course, you can't know that, so parents send them to private school anyway.

.............. and as if public school students don't work hard and have no self-discipline. Another straw man argument there! FYI, I worked hard and got to 98th percentile in my state, so I'm "sticking it" to those people who have their minds infected with private school classism.

The trouble is when sending kids to private school is a family tradition and becomes ingrained in people's minds. It's when it has nothing to do with personal choice, but something people think they're expected to do. Having said that, I respect Torpedo's personal choice to send her kids to private school because it is something she has thought deeply about.


Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 2:26pm:

Get rid of that chip on your shoulder, Mn!

If there's someone with a chip on their shoulder, it ain't me.

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 3:39pm:

Torpedo wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:29pm: I thought a bit better of you, actually Me too. I was building this great big statue in my mind of Mnemonic, when it all started to crumble and break up as I began to realise he wants us all to wear a one-size-fits-all gray shapeless smock, not too unlike a burqa. This way there's NO evidence of classism on display, and the Filthy Rich look just as impoverished as the ... er ... impoverishd. He's SUCH a disappointment to us, Torpedo. Perhaps even to his parents? His dog? Cat?  8-)

First impressions? Secondary impressions? 8-)

I thought I was just having a conversation. I didn't know someone was trying to put me on a scale.

Oh God NO! You're not back AGAIN are you Mnemonic?!

I've created a monster!!


http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e150/ruffdiamond/January%202013/holiday-sign_zps109a19af.jpg

::)

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 5:08pm:

Oh God NO! You're not back AGAIN are you Mnemonic?! I've created a monster!! http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e150/ruffdiamond/January%202013/holiday-sign_zps109a19af.jpg ::)

Herbert is a fascist,... he never got told he has two ears and one mouth for a reason!

Or did he and just conveniently forgets?!!?

  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D  ::)  :-[

Yeh, go me and my wit! Yehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh: got 'im again!  :-*

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 4:29pm:

I think you might be a 'revisionist' too, Mn.

I'm not a revisionist, just a realist.

The world is changing. Economic systems that have worked for 100 or so years won't necessarily continue working. I'm not looking back, but forwards to the future.

Capitalism is great for competition and a competitive system works only where there's plenty of energy and resources to go around. It takes effort to outdo your opponents. If they fight back, you have to fight harder. You will end up using more resources than if there weren't any competitors. If everyone is competing, then it's like hundreds of "big bad wolves" huffing and puffing and trying to blow each other's house down. It must be exhausting. 8-)


Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 4:29pm:

Since we found out your political hankering for a society that doesn't tolerate class differences

This is Australia. We're not supposed to have class differences. ;D

This is about keeping the status quo. As a dumping ground for convicts and immigrants, there's little room for arrogance. Classism is un-Australian. Australia was a class-free paradise before we even knew Marxism existed. We never needed a class-struggle or class war.


Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 4:29pm:

and that frowns upon individual capital enterprises,

Where did I say that? I said I was in favour of businesses getting rich.


Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 4:29pm:

or the private schooling of society's moneyed elite

People can send their kids to private school if they want. I am against the classism associated with private schooling. Just don't make it a class thing, because this is Australia and we don't have classes.


Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 4:29pm:

Jesus Christ had the same lack of understanding of how wealth is generated as you do. He threw the money-lenders out of the temple. Big mistake. Okay, so he was only a humble carpenter and didn't know any better ~ but today we DO know better.

Jesus was a Jew. It had a lot to do with his religion. While Jesus did have things to say about money, I don't think he was trying to be an economist. He was a mystic and if he had something to say about money, it wasn't all about planet earth. Well, you're agnostic anyway so why does it matter? :D

Mnemonic wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 5:43pm:

I'm not a revisionist, just a realist.

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 4:29pm:

Since we found out your political hankering for a society that doesn't tolerate class differences

Mnemonic wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 5:43pm:

This is Australia. We're not supposed to have class differences. ;D

There's more class-snobbery in Australia than there is in the UK. That might surprise you ~ just as it might surprise you that Sydney gets more rainfall each year than does London.


Mnemonic wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 5:43pm:

Classism is un-Australian. Australia was a class-free paradise ...

Your Landed Gentry has been the aristocracy here since Captain Cook was a boy.

The 'Pitt Street Farmers' ~ just like Malcolm Fraser and Anthony Peacock ~ have been lording it here since the days of Botany Bay.

(To be continued ... )

 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"You get to the point where you post something that you believe is thoughtful and then some inadequate little twerp decides to make a totally irrelevant and personal attack on you."  A Wise Lady

Methinks herbie has to harden up a little!! Um, crack strips you of your vitamins don't ya know!!   :o :o  ;D

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 4:40pm:

Can I tell you, Mnemonic ~ the worst bosses I ever met during my working life were not those at the top ~ but those at the bottom. The ones at the top had too much class to behave towards the rank and file like bastards. The arseholes were the lance corporals and the corporals amongst us. Something like the 'capo' in Hitler's extermination camps.  Give your own kind a tiny weeny bit of authority over their former peers ~ and they go feral with savagery. Seen it many times. Your 'egalitarian' Workers Paradise was always a myth, and will always be a myth.

I must have created the wrong impression. I find that I keep having to say, "no, I didn't mean that." ::)

I'm not against inequality, like I have said a number of times and nor am I saying there aren't any benefits of being "more educated." However, inequality isn't the same as class. We have inequality, but we don't have class. Class is something that exists in Britain and the USA, but not so much here.

I remember reading somewhere that when British and Australian soldiers started working together, one of the differences they discovered was the social hierarchy that existed in British society. There were different ways of speaking to people in British society, depending on their rank or status. For example, some of the British officers were part of the nobility. No such hierarchy existed in Australian society.

I hope I'm not being presumptuous in saying you must be British due to the fact that you have a union jack in your avatar. I'm assuming Andrei Hicks is British too. I remember him saying something about studying at a university in UK and how he found that "London" today is nothing like the home he remembered.

It makes me wonder if someone says, "I must be better than you because I went to private school," that it has to do with there being a social hierarchy in British society.

When it comes to the benefits of being "more educated," I can give Andrei credit for being more "polite" than most members of this board, but sometimes he does come across as patronising. I just would have thought it was beneath him to even be patronising. There are plenty of high-achievers in Australia who don't patronise. I managed to get to the 98th percentile in my state, but do I go around patronising people about it?

My conclusion: it must be something to do with being British.

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 6:01pm:

There's more class-snobbery in Australia than there is in the UK. That might surprise you ~ just as it might surprise you that Sydney gets more rainfall each year than does London.

I'd be interested in hearing a few stories about that. 8-)

Mnemonic wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 3:48pm:

It is getting more and more counter-productive these days to get rich because of the emerging economic reality: globalisation and too many people on this planet.

And? the point you trying to make is that we should encourage more dumb breeding? By distributing the wealth and letting the poor to sit on the dole and having access to public services at no cost at all will do what exactly, in support of your suggestion regarding overpopulation? Will it stop or increase the population?
Don't you think we would benefit more from having those who strive for knowledge, work hard, keep their yards clean, discovering and inventing (perhaps even  solving this problem with dying Earth), than those who prefer to sit on the couch from 9-3 with a pack of VB, grieving about how miserable those rich bastards are... till it's time to pick up their kiddy (who is also desitned to sit on the couch, unfortunately!)? Or perhaps you think it's better to help those multi-family immigrants, who breed and breed and breed, and hate everyone around them for their "infidelity" instead of actually contributing in some way? Is this what's supposed to be called SHARING? What for? for the sake of being dominated by them? are we masochists?
When the ship is sinking you save the bees not the cockroaches.

Torpedo wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 6:42pm:

And? the point you trying to make is that we should encourage more dumb breeding?

I had to go back several pages to remember what it was that I said . . . . .


Torpedo wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 6:42pm:

By distributing the wealth and letting the poor to sit on the dole and having access to public services at no cost at all will do what exactly, in support of your suggestion regarding overpopulation? Will it stop or increase the population?

If there are too many people, there won't be enough energy and resources and therefore "wealth" to go around. It's got nothing to do with whether there's someone actively distributing "wealth." Supply will not be able to keep up with demand. If suppliers and manufacturers of goods sell things to the highest bidder, that means that things you used to be able to buy really cheap are going to be really expensive. The whole world's population may reach a limit, but not before people start feeling some economic pain. Living costs may be so high, kids may not be able to afford textbooks anymore.


Torpedo wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 6:42pm:

Don't you think we would benefit more from having those who strive for knowledge, work hard, keep their yards clean, discovering and inventing (perhaps even  solving this problem with dying Earth), than those who prefer to sit on the couch from 9-3 with a pack of VB,

Again, I didn't say anything about not working hard. Can we find a "scientific" and "technological" solution? If we can find one, that's great. I just doubt we'll find one. The only solution is probably a "cultural" one.

This is the generation that gets married later, has fewer kids or doesn't have them at all because they're more self-centred and self-indulgent. It's the reason for our lower birth rates. They want more out of life than earlier generations. This sets a pattern. If people get used to living comfortable, happy and fun lives, they will find it hard to adjust to tough times.

It doesn't matter if they work hard. Their lifestyle is expensive. They're working hard for an expensive lifestyle. There are people on the other side of the world who are too poor to have that kind of lifestyle, yet they can still survive.

Why does it bother me? It's because people here won't be able to live like that forever. The happiness won't last and that's just sad. They worked hard, but they spent their earnings on themselves and on something they didn't really need. People in the future won't be so lucky.


Torpedo wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 6:42pm:

grieving about how miserable those rich bastards are... till it's time to pick up their kiddy (who is also desitned to sit on the couch, unfortunately!)?

Firstly, I'd like to clarify my views on the rich guys. Knowing that there are low-income families like your's that are doing it tough, when a high-income family complains that they're "doing it tough," I just don't have sympathy for them -- nothing to do with jealousy.

As for those couch-sitting guys, if they're still there it's because they don't know what they're missing. Have you ever looked at the people around you and felt you were missing something? Do you see people around you that have something you don't? A normal person would get up and do something about it. If they see something they want, they'll go after it. If they need money, they'll get a job.

If they're not doing that, there must be some deeper, personal issue that you wouldn't know about. Maybe they're suffering from depression or mental illness. They've lost their drive, lack motivation and every morning when they wake up they feel like the undead. They need to see a psychologist and get counselling. Whatever the problem is, CentreLink probably knows about it ........... 8-)


Torpedo wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 6:42pm:

Or perhaps you think it's better to help those multi-family immigrants, who breed and breed and breed, and hate everyone around them for their "infidelity" instead of actually contributing in some way?

People who call the men and women in our society philanderers and whores really put me off, but the Immigration Department let them in, so there's not much I can do. 8-)


Torpedo wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 6:42pm:

Is this what's supposed to be called SHARING? What for? for the sake of being dominated by them? are we masochists? When the ship is sinking you save the bees not the cockroaches.

I didn't say you had to share your stuff with "sexist" and "holier than thou" immigrants. Surely you've got family and friends? 8-)

Mnemonic wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 6:14pm:

Class is something that exists in Britain and the USA, but not so much here.

It's true that you people like to pretend there is no landed gentry here, and no North Shore golfing clubs, tennis clubs, or yachting clubs deliberately priced to keep out the riff-raff.

You like to pretend there isn't the silver-tailed, bejeweled opera crowd, or the High Fashion crowd, or those special marquees at the Flemington racecourse on Melbourne Cup Day that are filled with the sons and daughters of Australia's Social Elite.

As a sop to the Aussie myth of 'mateship' ~ your aristocrats are occasionally heard to utter the words ... "Good onya, mate" ... "Righto, mate" ...

It's all a pose.

The legal and political class in Australia are aggressively class-conscious and class-aspiring. They'll shop at Sydney's most expensive seaside suburbs rather than pay half price at K-Marts in the city where no one will recognise them.

And from your very own lips you have contradicted yourself, Mnemo :~

To wit: (paraphrasing) ~ "Private schooling is all about 'class'". You don't like the 'classism' that private schools represent.

But then: "Class is something that exists in Britain and the USA, but not so much here".

So isn't it a manifestation of 'classism' that so many parents send their children to private school here in Australia?

No 'class' in Australia? There's every bit as much social-climbing in Australia as there is in the UK - maybe more.

Every major city has its leafy suburbs where the 'aristocrats' segregate themselves from the Great Unwashed.

Most of these people loathe the Australian accent for it being nasal, whiny, and low-class. They hate being addressed as 'mate' for this being over-familiar and lacking in 'proper' respect for their social status.

etc.

The snobbery, the classism, the social climbing, and the looking-down-the-nose amongst You Australians is on display everywhere you go.



Mnemonic wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 6:14pm:

I remember reading somewhere that when British and Australian soldiers started working together, one of the differences they discovered was the social hierarchy that existed in British society. There were different ways of speaking to people in British society, depending on their rank or status. For example, some of the British officers were part of the nobility. No such hierarchy existed in Australian society.

One can boil that all down to one word: ~ Good manners, discipline, and respecting another's rank.

No petulance, no sulking, no little boy tantrums.

You People have been notoriously ill-disciplined during the Wars. Books have been written on it. Willful, delinquent, unruly, ADHD.


Mnemonic wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 6:14pm:

I hope I'm not being presumptuous in saying you must be British due to the fact that you have a union jack in your avatar.

Don't be so polite, you're making me feel guilty.  :P

The Union Jack doesn't identify anyone these days. Through mass and indiscriminate immigration over the past 40 years into the UK, the Union Jack represents absolutely no one ~ and everyone.

If you want to be British ~ just buy a little Union Jack flag on a popsicle stick from a Chinese 2 Dollar store ~ 'Made in China' ~ and wave it at certain events.

It's been rendered meaningless. It's a relic from a time when the Brits were not black, or turbaned, or Muslim... and they weren't born in the UK to set off suicide bombs in the London Underground.

I spent 7 years of my childhood in China. When I arrived in the UK it was foreign to me except for the language.


Mnemonic wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 6:14pm:

It makes me wonder if someone says, "I must be better than you because I went to private school," that it has to do with there being a social hierarchy in British society.

Get over your complex and you'll feel a lot better. Snobs are sad little people with no talent and too much money. Pity them, because they are actually miserable individuals who will one day die alone and unloved.


Mnemonic wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 6:14pm:

When it comes to the benefits of being "more educated," I can give Andrei credit for being more "polite" than most members of this board, but sometimes he does come across as patronising.

;D ;D ;D

Are you Indian or Chinese by any chance? I'm channeling someone from an ethnic background where politeness and respect is ALWAYS at a premium.


Mnemonic wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 6:14pm:

I managed to get to the 98th percentile in my state,

My sincere congratulations. Your parents must be very proud of you. Are you going into medicine (if I may presume to ask  8-))


Mnemonic wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 6:14pm:

My conclusion: it must be something to do with being British.

Ah! This is a clear case of stereotyping, profiling, racial prejudice, xenophobia, bigotry ... and maybe even the dreaded 'homophobia'!

Andrei and I demand an apology!

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 8:49am:

Mnemonic wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 6:14pm: Class is something that exists in Britain and the USA, but not so much here. It's true that you people like to pretend there is no landed gentry here, and no North Shore golfing clubs, tennis clubs, or yachting clubs deliberately priced to keep out the riff-raff.

and your forgetting business owners with the attitude I will sell to my kind but not others.


this attitude also relates to some retail employees out their that decide who they will serve and who they won't serve.

warrigal wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 9:15am:

this attitude also relates to some retail employees out their that decide who they will serve and who they won't serve.

Well let's be fair about this, Warrigal. If you enter a shop to make a purchase while wearing a long nicotine-stained beard ... dirty thongs ... broken and missing teeth ... long, filthy fingernails ... a ragged and torn army trench coat ... blood-shot eyes from drinking methylated spirits from Bunnings ... and bad breath fit to stop a charging buffalo ...

... then what do you expect?

I want to see you clean up your act before you visit Centrelink again.

Post a photo.

Meanwhile, Have a Nice Day!  8-)

 

Mnemonic wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 3:13am:

If there are too many people, there won't be enough energy and resources and therefore "wealth" to go around. It's got nothing to do with whether there's someone actively distributing "wealth." Supply will not be able to keep up with demand.

that's right, instead of taking away the rights from those who control their lifestyle, and instead of overpopulating, they work and save (whether they do it for their own sake, or the earth, or the humanity), and educate their kids, so there are much higher chances that these people will bring about a more positive outcome, and higher chances that these kind of people will actually contribute to healthier impact on earth, as a result: the humanity as a whole. So we would definitely benefit more by helping them to keep going at this pace, and continue contributing, than from those who prefer to suck up on our taxes, overbreed, advocate hatred, teaching their brood nonsense, bereave females from human rights, confining them in a sack and depriving them from an essential Vitamin D, burn churches, etc.
So may as well help those who are not as destructive and are not those brainless breeders.

Mnemonic wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 3:13am:

Can we find a "scientific" and "technological" solution? If we can find one, that's great. I just doubt we'll find one. The only solution is probably a "cultural" one.

oh no, the cultural one will actually make it worse, we've seen enough of this cultural one.
If we can find the solution (and I have a feeling we can), then we really need to work towards it, and instead of becoming dejected and give up, we need to persevere. But if in the end we find that there is no solution, then at least we can say we tried. But living like animals in caves till the end of humanity isn't going to help us either

Mnemonic wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 3:13am:

As for those couch-sitting guys, if they're still there it's because they don't know what they're missing. Have you ever looked at the people around you and felt you were missing something? Do you see people around you that have something you don't? A normal person would get up and do something about it. If they see something they want, they'll go after it. If they need money, they'll get a job.

I had to live in a severe circumstances, and I lost my father when I was 18, I had nobody to give me neither money, nor shelter, so I know how these people feel, but sitting down isn't going to improve their lives.
I used to cry myself to sleep, and the next morning I would go to work and put up with difficult customers, arrogant boss, and often without a break or lunch
The light will not come to you, you need to find a way to the light

P.S. There was not a person in the past to wipe my tears and give me some dole money.  On the other hand I saw those who had it all: moms and dads, comfy place to live, a car to drive around, and yet they lived on the dole which I, and many other people like me, supported for them.
And guess what, these are the people who won't help anyone, not then, not now, when they are successfull and wealthy.
These people are not rich. These are just rodents in our society. And there is plenty of them, it's just our genius governments aren't looking deep enough.

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 11:15am:

warrigal wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 9:15am: this attitude also relates to some retail employees out their that decide who they will serve and who they won't serve. Well let's be fair about this, Warrigal. If you enter a shop to make a purchase while wearing a long nicotine-stained beard ... dirty thongs ... broken and missing teeth ... long, filthy fingernails ... a ragged and torn army trench coat ... blood-shot eyes from drinking methylated spirits from Bunnings ... and bad breath fit to stop a charging buffalo ... ... then what do you expect? I want to see you clean up your act before you visit Centrelink again. Post a photo. Meanwhile, Have a Nice Day!  8-)

by the way arshole I haven't gone to centrelink dressed the way you perceive or assume.

your still a ignorant bastard korri

how does this korri get away with this, that's right it would be racist to say something against him.

Found a job yet Wazza?

warrigal wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 3:20pm:

by the way arshole I haven't gone to centrelink dressed the way you perceive or assume. your still a ignorant bastard korri how does this korri get away with this, that's right it would be racist to say something against him.

Correct!

As a black fella, even my shadow is a Sacred Site.

Warrigal, as an aborigine I've been thinking of developing 'Uluru' into a gigantic cavern filled with various constructions and amenities.

How do you like the idea?

Inside that huge stone there could be a casino ... a luxury hotel ... a tourist resort with certain novelties ... a shopping mall ... a miniature railway ... a cinema ... restaurants ... pubs ... cafes ... live shows ... etc etc.

someone needs to put a bomb under your buggern rock and destroy it first.

what a ignorant bastard you are korri elder Herbert

you come on this forum and tell everyone there is no class system in Australia.

but then you Act like your korri king muck and think that your better then everyone else in our society.

so the comment I made about how some treat others bin our society is correct.

and there are some of higher class out there.

king korri

and All this to make white man's money for a greedy black man

a ignorant greedy black korri

warrigal wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 4:13pm:

what a ignorant bastard you are korri elder Herbert

Alas, 'tis true, brother Warrigal.


warrigal wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 4:13pm:

you come on this forum and tell everyone there is no class system in Australia.

I did indeed.


warrigal wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 4:13pm:

but then you Act like your korri king muck and think that your better then everyone else in our society.

That's only since Kevin said "Sorry!" to me.

I used to be quite humble before that. I knew my place as a black fella in a white man's society.


warrigal wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 4:13pm:

so the comment I made about how some treat others bin our society is correct.

I have to admit that, yes.


warrigal wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 4:13pm:

and there are some of higher class out there. king korri. and All this to make white man's money for a greedy black man a ignorant greedy black korri

Greed is GOOD, brother Warrigal.

It's why 50,000 boat-people have arrived since Labor came to power.

All chasing the All Mighty dollar.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 11^th, 2013 at 3:46pm:

It is pretty straight forward. If you take more than you give, you are a welfare bludger. BTW, most middle class pay a sh1t load in tax, a lot more than any 'wealthfare' they may receive.

I thought the above was bleeding obvious. Seems not.

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 5:33pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 3:46pm: It is pretty straight forward. If you take more than you give, you are a welfare bludger. BTW, most middle class pay a sh1t load in tax, a lot more than any 'wealthfare' they may receive. I thought the above was bleeding obvious. Seems not.

I can't see how a measly $500 per fortnight from the government, is taking more than anyones value in society. considering the things I have done though my life.

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 5:33pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 3:46pm: It is pretty straight forward. If you take more than you give, you are a welfare bludger. BTW, most middle class pay a sh1t load in tax, a lot more than any 'wealthfare' they may receive. I thought the above was bleeding obvious. Seems not.

The middle class dont need wealthfare though - they can afford to get by without it unlike the ppl that arent getting the money that do need it.

SOB

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 8:49am:

It's true that you people like to pretend there is no landed gentry here, and no North Shore golfing clubs, tennis clubs, or yachting clubs deliberately priced to keep out the riff-raff. You like to pretend there isn't the silver-tailed, bejeweled opera crowd, or the High Fashion crowd, or those special marquees at the Flemington racecourse on Melbourne Cup Day that are filled with the sons and daughters of Australia's Social Elite.

Well, I don't doubt the existence of special "upper-class" clubs, events, gatherings and fashions. I just think people can be rich without the classism. They're rich, they consider themselves rich, but they don't consider themselves a class.


Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 8:49am:

And from your very own lips you have contradicted yourself, Mnemo :~ To wit: (paraphrasing) ~ "Private schooling is all about 'class'". You don't like the 'classism' that private schools represent. But then: "Class is something that exists in Britain and the USA, but not so much here". So isn't it a manifestation of 'classism' that so many parents send their children to private school here in Australia? No 'class' in Australia? There's every bit as much social-climbing in Australia as there is in the UK - maybe more.

Maybe to some extent you're right. We do have "hard-nosed" people in Australia. They don't like bad drivers. They want their house to be tidy. They want their kids to have a good education, but it's not love. It's prestige. The men buy new cars to impress the girls, act suave and show that they've got cash. The women look for men they consider "safe" and avoid the "risky" type: ie. those who drive fancy cars, pay for their dinner and have lots of cash. They're constantly comparing themselves to their friends. They won't choose a "trashy" girlfriend or boyfriend. They'll look bad in front of their friends. It's a race to see who gets their driver's license first, who is the first to move out or buy a house. They are continually evaluating each other's choices.

Maybe hanging out with people who belonged to a different demographic to the people at high school (should I call them yuppies?) has made me think there is no class here. I recently had a "mid-life crisis" and began subconsciously dissociating myself from those "yuppie" high school peers. I became disillusioned with the "hard-nosed" people I knew in my adolescence. It was a complete change in identity. I thought of myself as a completely different person. I started hating my "roots."

But then I forgot ............... I was getting away from the hard-nosed (and maybe classist) people out there ............. getting away from classism and snobbery.


Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 8:49am:

Most of these people loathe the Australian accent for it being nasal, whiny, and low-class. They hate being addressed as 'mate' for this being over-familiar and lacking in 'proper' respect for their social status.

Yeah ............. the constant swearing to show they're a regular bloke. S-word, F-word, C-word and other expletives. ........ and how "classy" people don't do that. You're either hard-nosed/classy/classist or you're a cool/regular bloke.

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 8:49am:

Don't be so polite, you're making me feel guilty.  :P

I don't know what people would say about my track record with politeness here. I don't normally think about being polite. I say my Thank-You's and Please's but that's just a habit. I just thought if I was going to ask if someone was British (or any other nationality), I better tread carefully. 8-)


Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 8:49am:

The Union Jack doesn't identify anyone these days. Through mass and indiscriminate immigration over the past 40 years into the UK, the Union Jack represents absolutely no one ~ and everyone. It's been rendered meaningless. It's a relic from a time when the Brits were not black, or turbaned, or Muslim... and they weren't born in the UK to set off suicide bombs in the London Underground.

It may not identity your ethnicity, but surely it does identify your nationality, does it not? 8-)


Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 8:49am:

If you want to be British ~ just buy a little Union Jack flag on a popsicle stick from a Chinese 2 Dollar store ~ 'Made in China' ~ and wave it at certain events.

Made-in-China Australian flags are common too.


Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 8:49am:

I spent 7 years of my childhood in China. When I arrived in the UK it was foreign to me except for the language.

Seven years in China hey? You must have learn to speak Mandarin in that time. :D


Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 8:49am:

Are you Indian or Chinese by any chance? I'm channeling someone from an ethnic background where politeness and respect is ALWAYS at a premium.

I think a little bit of mystery is a good thing. 8-) I could be the guy who runs the KwikiMart (Simpsons) or the City Wok (South Park) ........ or something else altogether. Every now and then, little bits of my life leak out. For now, I think I'll keep you guessing. 8-)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for "politeness" and "respect," I think it is more a result of an experience I had several years ago when I was studying, than to do with my "background." Let me just say, bullying doesn't just happen in high school. It happens in university as well. In fact, it happens everywhere: in the workplace, in relationships, in marriages, in the armed forces; it happens everywhere. I think the 98th percentile score should be a sign: I was very competitive in high school.

At university I used to spend time with a "friend" who like me, studied hard and thought of himself as "smart." We had a kind of "competition" and "rivalry" that got a little too "personal." I never wanted a competition. I was a victim of bullying in high school and tried hard to manage conflicts, to not hit back emotionally at an aggressor. But this guy was keen. He was obsessed. I was afraid that if I told him to stop, he'd say that I was weak or a coward, so I let this continue for four years. Eventually we stopped talking to each other and blamed each other for what happened.

That guy put me in very uncomfortable situations and I promised myself I wasn't going to do the same to anyone else. That experience taught me the true meaning of respect.

It's because of that experience that I don't like snobbery. I don't want to go back to that life. It brought the worst out of me. It destroyed a friendship. Snobbery and classism tear people apart. They stop trusting and talking to each other -- nothing to do with being a "left-wing whinger."

Snobs only have snobs as friends. That's fine until people start quitting the snob group and saying, "I'm out."


Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 8:49am:

My sincere congratulations. Your parents must be very proud of you. Are you going into medicine (if I may presume to ask  8-))

Oh that was a while ago. If I wanted to get into Medicine, I would have needed 99, but I wasn't interested in it anyway.

Back in my "yuppie" days, the score really mattered. Now it doesn't.

What people achieve in high school becomes insignificant as the years go by. When you get your university degree, it doesn't matter if you went to public or private school. When you go out looking for a job, employers are looking for experience. Even university qualifications aren't so important unless the job involves number crunching or really technical matters -- like jobs for engineers, accountants, lawyers, judges and scientists -- where you really have to know what you're doing.

If you're running a business, it's more about management, making decisions and dealing with people. They won't care so much that you have a Business, Commerce or Arts degree. I actually did choose a path where university qualifications did matter, but my high school results won't help my career prospects.


Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 8:49am:

Ah! This is a clear case of stereotyping, profiling, racial prejudice, xenophobia, bigotry ... and maybe even the dreaded 'homophobia'! Andrei and I demand an apology!

I thought the British were a nationality, not a race -- a bit like being Roman. 8-) Join the Empire.

warrigal wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 7:01am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 5:33pm: BigOl64 wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 3:46pm: It is pretty straight forward. If you take more than you give, you are a welfare bludger. BTW, most middle class pay a sh1t load in tax, a lot more than any 'wealthfare' they may receive. I thought the above was bleeding obvious. Seems not. I can't see how a measly $500 per fortnight from the government, is taking more than anyones value in society. considering the things I have done though my life.

You should stop whinging and use that energy in trying to get ANY job instead. You may not be aware of this .. but the dole is intended and has always been intended, to function as a stop gap measure only.

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 1:59pm:

warrigal wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 7:01am: Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 5:33pm: BigOl64 wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 3:46pm: It is pretty straight forward. If you take more than you give, you are a welfare bludger. BTW, most middle class pay a sh1t load in tax, a lot more than any 'wealthfare' they may receive. I thought the above was bleeding obvious. Seems not. I can't see how a measly $500 per fortnight from the government, is taking more than anyones value in society. considering the things I have done though my life. You should stop whinging and use that energy in trying to get ANY job instead. You may not be aware of this .. but the dole is intended and has always been intended, to function as a stop gap measure only.

Not any more with 400k more unemployed than there are jobs.

SOB

If you truly WANT a job.. you will get one. Fact!

Torpedo wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 1:52pm:

that's right, instead of taking away the rights from those who control their lifestyle, and instead of overpopulating

Oh I was never saying anyone should be forced to do anything. I was just talking about a change in culture. If people continue living the way they do, there's nothing I can do about it.

The only changes I proposed for the current "system" were to the tax system so that business was easier and so that our economy can compete. I do think we have a high-cost economy and need to step down to a low-cost one, but I'm still thinking about how we're going to achieve that.


Torpedo wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 2:06pm:

oh no, the cultural one will actually make it worse, we've seen enough of this cultural one. If we can find the solution (and I have a feeling we can), then we really need to work towards it, and instead of becoming dejected and give up, we need to persevere. But if in the end we find that there is no solution, then at least we can say we tried. But living like animals in caves till the end of humanity isn't going to help us either

Actually, one solution I can think of isn't a new technology or a scientific breakthrough, but where we live and how we get to work or school each day.

Instead of living in houses, we'd live in caravans. Instead of driving to work/school each day, you park your caravan near your workplace or school and walk there every morning. That would save lots of fuel.

Each caravan would be like a bedroom. If you need something bigger, you get a bus with its seats ripped out.

Instead of a television set for each family, it's communal television: a television set or cinema for each channel.

Instead of having mail delivered to a "home address," it will go to an account you have with the postal service. The postal service will deliver the mail to your current location. You will collect it from a special post box.

Instead of urban dwellers, we'd be nomads, ready to uproot and go at will. At the moment we don't have the infrastructure to support such a system, but in the future ............ who knows?

Mnemonic wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 1:53pm:

Well, I don't doubt the existence of special "upper-class" clubs, events, gatherings and fashions...

Thank you. Point proven. Australia is not even remotely a classless society.

Just ask the old folk what it was like in the Old Days when you tried to get a job east of Parramatta in Sydney if your addressed showed you to be a 'Westy'.

Many applicants chose to lie about where they lived rather than say they lived in Blacktown or further west.

'Class' distinction exists to a very fine degree in Australian society.


Mnemonic wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 1:53pm:

Maybe to some extent you're right.

Ah, Grasshopper ... Is it not better to learn new Truths than to cherish old Falsehoods?


Mnemonic wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 1:53pm:

They want their house to be tidy. They want their kids to have a good education, but it's not love. It's prestige.

Vanity ... yea, all is vanity. I'm an agnostic, but the Bible is filled with timeless wisdom, and all beautifully written. Vanity.


Mnemonic wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 1:53pm:

I started hating my "roots."

Interesting, but I don't doubt your ethnic roots have a very broad and rich base to it. It's not fair to condemn the entire spectrum because a little Dutch elm disease is found here and there amongst the bounty, Grasshopper.


Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 8:49am:

Most of these people loathe the Australian accent for it being nasal, whiny, and low-class. They hate being addressed as 'mate' for this being over-familiar and lacking in 'proper' respect for their social status.

Mnemonic wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 1:53pm:

Yeah ............. the constant swearing to show they're a regular bloke. S-word, F-word, C-word and other expletives. ........ and how "classy" people don't do that.

This is a tough one. The nouveau riche swear like drunken sailors because their money is 'new' but their working class origins have not yet been bred out of them.

In terms of cultural refinement, etiquette, and 'actin' proper, like' ~ they're still all thumbs and no fingers like Norman Wisdom at a Royal banquet.

James Packer ... John Singleton ... these are rich people with very few social graces, and a happy penchant for using the 'f' word at every opportunity.

etc

Mnemonic wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 1:55pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 8:49am: Don't be so polite, you're making me feel guilty.  :P I just thought if I was going to ask if someone was British (or any other nationality), I better tread carefully. 8-)

Ah. You've raised an interesting point.

The only people I have ever met who are NOT paranoid about their nationality are people from the English-speaking countries.

It's only You Ethnics who tense up with paranoid suspicion if someone should ask where you come from. The reason: you have your traditional enemies, going back centuries.


Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 8:49am:

The Union Jack doesn't identify anyone these days. Through mass and indiscriminate immigration over the past 40 years into the UK, the Union Jack represents absolutely no one ~ and everyone.

Mnemonic wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 1:55pm:

It may not identity your ethnicity, but surely it does identify your nationality, does it not? 8-)

Good lord, no.

Each summer when India and Pakistan's national cricket teams arrive in the UK to play the 'British' ~ they are swamped by hysterical crowds of fifth generation immigrant Indians and Pakistanis carrying them triumphantly on their shoulders in various parts of England.

Same when the West Indian cricketing team arrives. People born in Britain in the 1950's greet them as visiting heroes, and barrack for them all the way through the summer months.

If a war came, half of Britain's population would have to be shipped off to the Canadian wilderness for internment until the cessation of hostilities.

[quote author=Mnemonic link=1376192497/112#112 date=1376625321Seven years in China hey? You must have learn to speak Mandarin in that time. :D[/quote]

Ah-HUH! Now I know where you come from, Grasshopper!

Anybody else would have assumed I had lived in Hong Kong, and had learned to speak a little Cantonese. But you nominated north China ~ an odd choice for a Gweilo to have spent as a child.

I lived in both Shanghai and Hong Kong, but as for more information... well, first you have to snatch these 5 fresh testicles out of my hand, Grasshooper...

(Sorry, I'm reading a book about Hannibal Lecter at the moment, and ... )  8-)

I looked up “real bludger” and there was a picture of Wazza!!!

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 4:28pm:

Mnemonic wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 1:55pm: Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 8:49am: Don't be so polite, you're making me feel guilty.  :P I just thought if I was going to ask if someone was British (or any other nationality), I better tread carefully. 8-)

Ah. You've raised an interesting point.

The only people I have ever met who are NOT paranoid about their nationality are people from the English-speaking countries.

It's only You Ethnics who tense up with paranoid suspicion if someone should ask where you come from. The reason: you have your traditional enemies, going back centuries.


Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 8:49am:

The Union Jack doesn't identify anyone these days. Through mass and indiscriminate immigration over the past 40 years into the UK, the Union Jack represents absolutely no one ~ and everyone.

Mnemonic wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 1:55pm:

It may not identity your ethnicity, but surely it does identify your nationality, does it not? 8-)

Good lord, no.

Each summer when India and Pakistan's national cricket teams arrive in the UK to play the 'British' ~ they are swamped by hysterical crowds of fifth generation immigrant Indians and Pakistanis carrying them triumphantly on their shoulders in various parts of England.

Same when the West Indian cricketing team arrives. People born in Britain in the 1950's greet them as visiting heroes, and barrack for them all the way through the summer months.

If a war came, half of Britain's population would have to be shipped off to the Canadian wilderness for internment until the cessation of hostilities.


Mnemonic wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 1:55pm:

Seven years in China hey? You must have learn to speak Mandarin in that time. :D

Ah-HUH! Now I know where you come from, Grasshopper!

Anybody else would have assumed I had lived in Hong Kong, and had learned to speak a little Cantonese. But you nominated north China ~ an odd choice for a Gweilo to have spent as a child.

I lived in both Shanghai and Hong Kong, but as for more information... well, first you have to snatch these 5 fresh testicles from my hand, Grasshopper...

(Sorry, I'm reading a book about Hannibal Lecter at the moment, and ... )  8-)

Torpedo wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 2:22pm:

I had to live in a severe circumstances, and I lost my father when I was 18, I had nobody to give me neither money, nor shelter, ............................................. I used to cry myself to sleep, and the next morning I would go to work and put up with difficult customers, arrogant boss, and often without a break or lunch The light will not come to you, you need to find a way to the light

I'm sorry to hear that. By "no shelter" I take it you were homeless? I assume that your mother wasn't there to help or she was evicted as well after your dad died. It must have been a long journey getting back above the poverty line.


Torpedo wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 2:22pm:

so I know how these people feel, but sitting down isn't going to improve their lives.

Oh I wasn't talking about you, but about imagining what's happening to these people and no it wasn't about how they "feel." I was saying that if people stay at home and don't go out looking for a job, there's something wrong with them. People who have depression or mental illness aren't "down" on themselves. They lack motivation and direction, they're confused and don't know what to do with their lives. They're not sad. It's not an emotion. Something has happened to them that affects their brain. Cutting their welfare wouldn't make them suddenly jump up and start doing something. I know because I have met some of these people. They're like the living dead.


Torpedo wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 2:22pm:

P.S. There was not a person in the past to wipe my tears and give me some dole money.  On the other hand I saw those who had it all: moms and dads, comfy place to live, a car to drive around, and yet they lived on the dole which I, and many other people like me, supported for them.

I can see now what makes you dislike the dole system so much. But surely, if you were able to benefit from that system, wouldn't you be grateful? You wouldn't have had to lose so many years of your life trying to get back up. The dole system is there to prevent you from ending up in that situation, but there is certainly going to be people slipping through the cracks.

Unfortunately, CentreLink can't help you if you don't have a home address or bank account. I would think they would have programs now where, if you're homeless, they will find you a place to live and help you sign up for a bank account so you won't have to live out there in the streets. Yeah, they're giving you something for nothing. It must be embarrassing to ask, but it's because there are so many people living so much more comfortably than you. It's why we call ourselves a "developed country." You were below the poverty line and the dole brings you back up to the "bottom" of our society.

Torpedo wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 2:22pm:

And guess what, these are the people who won't help anyone, not then, not now, when they are successfull and wealthy. These people are not rich. These are just rodents in our society. And there is plenty of them, it's just our genius governments aren't looking deep enough.

I can see how your experience shapes your views. Maybe I could share my own and tell you how I got my views.

I had a midlife crisis at around the same time that the 2008 global financial crisis hit. What I saw around me was a competition between people on how much wealth they could accumulate. If you've read about the story of the sub-prime mortgage crisis in America, you'd know what I mean. Some people were buying maybe 3 or 4 houses and getting home loans and mortgages for them, even though some of them didn't have a job. You'd think the Americans had gone mad.

These people were borrowing huge amounts of money and overspending, pretending they were rich when they weren't. They didn't want their friends to think less of them. Eventually after accumulating huge mountains of debt, the economy collapsed because the banks weren't making any money from all this debt. People weren't paying them back. It wasn't just the USA, however. Europe was doing it too. I wouldn't be surprised if it happened here.

Ok, I mentioned debt, but that wasn't what I thought was the main problem. For me the problem was people overspending. The more you want, the bigger the lifestyle, the more you spend. It wasn't just a case of people living beyond their means. They just wanted too much.

At the time this was going on and I was having my "midlife crisis," I had been having a "competition" and "rivalry" with my high school "friend." We eventually stopped being friends as a result. I got sick of the competition, of working so hard and comparing myself with another person and that's what caused my "midlife crisis." My academic performance had fallen to a low. When Lehman Brother's collapsed and the financial crisis hit, there seemed to be a similarity. The USA and Europe seemed like they had driven themselves to exhaustion, just hoping to beat the competition, just like me with my studies. I had no energy left, just like the USA and Europe.

Getting to the 98th percentile in high school didn't matter anymore. I was just a bum like everyone else. I was a failure and I felt humiliated. I started dissociating myself from my "yuppie" high school peers and people who didn't have a university degree. I got my degree and finished my course, but the marks at the end weren't good and I pretended it wasn't worth anything anymore.

I felt like I was sinking into the deepest "hell," I would ever know. But I knew that if there was hell on earth, there was always something deeper, always someone less fortunate than myself. Well, of course there was ............. we all know that ............. but if I truly loved myself, truly cared about myself, I would care about these people too. Every time I saw them, I was looking in the mirror.

I got on a bus one day and two teenagers came up to me telling me they were homeless and asked for money. I handed it over. It was my first experience of how life must have been like for homeless people. Some 30 minutes later, the two boys needed to get off and the door didn't open properly. One of the boys got angry and kicked the door. He got into an altercation the bus driver and hit the bus from the outside. It wasn't casual swearing, the boy who kicked the door and hit the bus was obviously in distress and quite emotional. He was really angry. The other boy kept apologising for him.

In the months that followed, I got more requests for money from people on public transport, and it seemed like they weren't asking anyone else first. It seemed like a coincidence. How would they know I was going to say yes? If there was a God and he knew what I was thinking and knew I had had a midlife crisis and getting in touch with my "inner hell," it probably wasn't a coincidence.

I did meet another angry homeless person recently in the city's CBD. He got angry because my friend told me not to give him money and it started a fight. When my friend and I talked about it afterwards, he had a similar view to what you have. There are some differences, though: he was never homeless, but he isn't keen on the idea of people getting money for free.

I think that will be all for now ..... There was a bit more that I wanted to say, but I need to go somewhere.

Mnemonic wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 5:35pm:

I can see how your experience shapes your views. Maybe I could share my own and tell you how I got my views.

And so, based on your story, it's now ok to disadvantage someone like me?
It doesn't make sense with regards to your opinion on Private schools.
Just answer one question: how many middle class family (such as me) would be able to afford to teach their kids at cheapest private schools, if Gonski reform proceeded?
Your opinions are very selfish.
Oh and your: that a smart kid would do well in any circumstances is utter and sheer absurd.
Remember "My fair Lady?". Can you believe tha such a sophisticated and upper class lady was ever a wench?

Mnemonic wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 4:46pm:

I'm sorry to hear that. By "no shelter" I take it you were homeless? I assume that your mother wasn't there to help or she was evicted as well after your dad died. It must have been a long journey getting back above the poverty line.

no, it's just your assumption. I was not homeless, I worked for my "shelter", but only if you could call it that and old stinky couch was my bed for number of years. All at my expense.
Many people go through it for a while, it's ok.
Some people also don't have family, it's also ok, I am not whining, just frustrated how so many swindlers get what they don't really need.
And no, I am not against dole, just against corruption

Torpedo wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 7:32pm:

And so, based on your story, it's now ok to disadvantage someone like me?

We discussed your situation several months ago. You explained your case. I accepted it. The discussion then came to an end. I assumed we had moved on. I suppose giving my story changes things. If there is a new dispute you have with me, fine, so be it. Let me just say, my objection to private schooling was always in response to someone having an income of $200k complaining about "doing it tough" because amongst other things, they sent their kids to private school. For low-income people like yourself, I have no dispute. Do you want a dispute with someone who has no dispute with you?


Torpedo wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 7:32pm:

It doesn't make sense with regards to your opinion on Private schools.

Let me know what doesn't make sense.


Torpedo wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 7:32pm:

Just answer one question: how many middle class family (such as me) would be able to afford to teach their kids at cheapest private schools, if Gonski reform proceeded?

From what I've heard, Gonski will provide equal funding to every single child, public or private. On that statement alone, Gonski sounds fair. That's one of the things about Gonksi that I can remember off the top of my head. If I am wrong, correct me.

I am just a little puzzled as to why you brought that up because I never expressed any wholehearted support of Gonski. I got involved in discussions about public and private schooling, but it was never about Gonski.


Torpedo wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 7:32pm:

Your opinions are very selfish.

If basing my views on my personal experience is "very selfish," then I concede, yes it is very selfish. I am not, however, the only person expressing their views in these forums, so you have a whole crowd of very selfish people here expressing their views. I am just as human as everyone else and I don't see how I am any different from anyone else.

The main reason why I told you my story was because you told me your's. I was just returning the favour. I learn something about you, you learn something about me. If you don't like my views, that's fair enough, but maybe you're better off knowing about them. For me personally, it's always good to know what someone else is thinking.


Torpedo wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 7:32pm:

Oh and your: that a smart kid would do well in any circumstances is utter and sheer absurd.

Let's put this in context. This was in response to someone saying several months ago, "I'm better than you because I go to private school." This triggered a number of discussions, which gets us to where we are now. I am sorry I got you involved in this. This isn't about you and your kids.


Torpedo wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 7:32pm:

Remember "My fair Lady?". Can you believe tha such a sophisticated and upper class lady was ever a wench?

Are you talking about the film? Are you therefore talking about "rags to riches?"

If so, my dispute with private schooling was about something totally different. It was about high-income families complaining about "doing it tough." That isn't exactly "rags to riches." These people are already quite wealthy. They don't need to make any big sacrifices. They have more resources than you do and more options.

Torpedo wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 7:37pm:

it's also ok, I am not whining, just frustrated how so many swindlers get what they don't really need.

Me too.

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 2:49pm:

If you truly WANT a job.. you will get one. Fact!

400k ppl wont. . .

SOB

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 1:59pm:

warrigal wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 7:01am: Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 5:33pm: BigOl64 wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 3:46pm: It is pretty straight forward. If you take more than you give, you are a welfare bludger. BTW, most middle class pay a sh1t load in tax, a lot more than any 'wealthfare' they may receive. I thought the above was bleeding obvious. Seems not. I can't see how a measly $500 per fortnight from the government, is taking more than anyones value in society. considering the things I have done though my life. You should stop whinging and use that energy in trying to get ANY job instead. You may not be aware of this .. but the dole is intended and has always been intended, to function as a stop gap measure only.

well lisa if it is a stop gap measure it should stop and employment should be provide to the unemployed person. they have served their time unemployed, now its time for a job. after all what is a unemployed person. A unemployed person is a trained and skilled worker not let work by a society that doesn't care about its people.

the fight for our rights continues.

the point lisa is there are jobs out there, there are employers screaming for workers in all industrys, why do we have unemployment.

because the jobs aren't being made available to the unemployed job seekers, and the unemployed job seekers are not being considered for them.

warrigal wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 7:38am:

because the jobs aren't being made available to the unemployed job seekers, and the unemployed job seekers are not being considered for them.

...because the unemployed people like you wont get off your arse and take one.

Mnemonic wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 1:54am:

From what I've heard, Gonski will provide equal funding to every single child, public or private. On that statement alone, Gonski sounds fair. That's one of the things about Gonksi that I can remember off the top of my head. If I am wrong, correct me. I am just a little puzzled as to why you brought that up because I never expressed any wholehearted support of Gonski. I got involved in discussions about public and private schooling, but it was never about Gonski. Let's put this in context. This was in response to someone saying several months ago, "I'm better than you because I go to private school." This triggered a number of discussions, which gets us to where we are now. I am sorry I got you involved in this. This isn't about you and your kids. ...my dispute with private schooling was about something totally different. It was about high-income families complaining about "doing it tough." That isn't exactly "rags to riches." These people are already quite wealthy. They don't need to make any big sacrifices. They have more resources than you do and more options.

No no, it was about abolishing support for private schooling altogether, not just about the "rich", as much as I remember. And just because the conversation ended, doesn't mean I agreed.
I clearly remember your views on it - ban it, and give it to public schools, and if anyone chooses private it's their problem.
You also emphatically inculcated where I should be better off, such is being better off at public school.
But I may have mixed things up, who knows

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 11^th, 2013 at 1:50pm:

wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 1:41pm: Who are the real bludgers?      :( People, who for year after year, take more than they contribute; always have been always will be.

That is weapons-grade bulldust. This definition applies to an old-age pensioner; does this mean they are bludgers?

Someone who is bludging off the system would be someone who can work but is making no effort to find work. There's less people who fall into that category than you may think.

Some people do game the welfare system, in much the same way that some people game the tax system or other systems, both public and private. But most are not.

Yet it is wrong - even defamatory - to label all people as "bludgers" who are long-term unemployed. It also contributes to the problem of long-term unemployment by making it harder for the long-term unemployed to find work, as employers who believe the bludger myth are less likely to give a badly-needed break to someone who is long-term unemployed.

Many unemployed people are making a genuine effort to find work but have not landed that elusive job. Some people apply for hundreds of jobs before landing one. Not everyone is able to brown-tongue their way around the ol'-boy network whenever they need to find a job.

Convincing a perfect stranger to hire you when you're out of work is one of the labours of Hercules. For anyone that's been out of work for a year or more, that inconvenient gap in the employment history of the résumé is a death sentence for many jobs. Most employers consider that gap a sufficient reason to place that résumé in the "rejected" pile. It is said that it is much easier to get a job if you already have a job; the corollary of that is: it is much harder to get a job if you don't have one.

For employers, if someone who is long-term unemployed applies for a job with your company, assume that they want to work for you. Don't reject them just because they've got a gap in their work history. Some of the best employees you will ever have are those who will value the job more. So take the time to interview at least one long-term unemployed person for every advertised position. You will find that many are not bludgers but have just fallen on difficult times.

One of the best posts I've seen so far on this subject.

Quote:

A businesswoman has criticised ‘useless’ JobCentre staff who directed 100 applicants to her – but none was interested in a job. Jean Rasbridge said the service was ‘wasting everyone’s time’ after candidates either failed to show up for interviews or even start a job once they were hired. She claims the Government-run centres were simply helping the unemployed to ‘tick boxes’ so they could keep their benefits. Mrs Rasbridge, who co-founded a firm that sells electronic cigarettes, was initially pleased to receive almost 100 applications for an £8-per-hour post as a warehouse packer. But of the seven jobseekers Mrs Rasbridge invited for an interview, only two showed up. And even the one candidate who was offered the position failed to turn up. Last night she said her firm had stopped using the JobCentre to find staff after their ‘nightmare’ experience.

She's Mad as Hell and she's not going to take it any more ...

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e150/ruffdiamond/January%202013/unemployedman_zps9c9b47ce.png

Thats not even australian

Thing is there could be other reasons - pplmay know about her firm and know better than to go there or maybe they got other jobs or maybe its the jobseek place sending the wrong ppl. Who knows. Who cares. Its not australia.

SOB

http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e150/ruffdiamond/January%202013/23-08-20134-24-11PM_zps4625dd9c.png

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 3:33pm:

Quote: A businesswoman has criticised ‘useless’ JobCentre staff who directed 100 applicants to her – but none was interested in a job. Jean Rasbridge said the service was ‘wasting everyone’s time’ after candidates either failed to show up for interviews or even start a job once they were hired. She claims the Government-run centres were simply helping the unemployed to ‘tick boxes’ so they could keep their benefits. Mrs Rasbridge, who co-founded a firm that sells electronic cigarettes, was initially pleased to receive almost 100 applications for an £8-per-hour post as a warehouse packer. But of the seven jobseekers Mrs Rasbridge invited for an interview, only two showed up. And even the one candidate who was offered the position failed to turn up. Last night she said her firm had stopped using the JobCentre to find staff after their ‘nightmare’ experience. She's Mad as Hell and she's not going to take it any more ... http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e150/ruffdiamond/January%202013/unemployedman_zps9c9b47ce.png

this is the most ignorant thing you have ever posted, 100 people sent by a job network, well for a start that doesn't happen, and they all wern't interested in the job, where do you get your information from, the black mans fairys.

I've found most stories like this one to be either media beat-ups or deliberate, politically-motivated plants.

They rarely have any basis in fact.

warrigal wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 7:15am:

... this is the most ignorant thing you have ever posted,

;D Thank you for keeping me humble, you white bastard.


warrigal wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 7:15am:

and they all wern't interested in the job ...

And THAT is the crux of the problem of getting some of the young ones out of their parent's home, and mum's cooking, and the computer in the bedroom, and the little packet of marijuana under the table-lamp.

Repetitive process work of a boring and soul-destroying kind cannot compete with the attractions of being on the dole while still living in the family home.

But ... the working life must begin some time with these youths.


warrigal wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 7:15am:

the black mans fairys.

I'll point the bone in your direction if you don't look out, you white trailer-trash.

Kat wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 8:39am:

I've found most stories like this one to be either media beat-ups or deliberate, politically-motivated plants. They rarely have any basis in fact.

And that the Chinese are growing at x4 per day, and sooner or later not only there wont be any unemployment pmts, but also no jobs for anyone non-
asian, has some basis?

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 9:26am:

warrigal wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 7:15am: ... this is the most ignorant thing you have ever posted, ;D Thank you for keeping me humble, you white bastard. warrigal wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 7:15am: and they all wern't interested in the job ... And THAT is the crux of the problem of getting some of the young ones out of their parent's home, and mum's cooking, and the computer in the bedroom, and the little packet of marijuana under the table-lamp. Repetitive process work of a boring and soul-destroying kind cannot compete with the attractions of being on the dole while still living in the family home. But ... the working life must begin some time with these youths. warrigal wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 7:15am: the black mans fairys. I'll point the bone in your direction if you don't look out, you white trailer-trash.

what a ignorant black pig you are Herbert, if you expect people to work provide jobs you ignorant bastard korri

Kat wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 8:39am:

I've found most stories like this one to be either media beat-ups or deliberate, politically-motivated plants. They rarely have any basis in fact.

well here is the facts kat in this case the employer didn't offer a attractive enough job offer.

people don't just want a job they want a career and the benefit of that career.

warrigal wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 7:59am:

what a ignorant black pig you are Herbert, if you expect people to work provide jobs you ignorant bastard korri

There are plenty of jobs going, you White Supremacist park-bench bum!

1. All the Supermarket trolley collectors in Sydney are Arabic, with an increasing number of Negroes.

2. All the security guards at shopping malls are Arabic or Pacific Islanders, with an increasing number of Indians.

3. The Town Centre pavement cleaners in my area have nearly always been Anglo-Australians, with the occasional Sikh Indian.

4. Railway personnel at the stations are a mixed bunch.

These are jobs that always have vacancies.

Warrigal ~ you racist white bastard ~ go to your local Centrelink office and jump up on the counter with an AK-47 in your hands and DEMAND they give you one of these jobs.

Don't take "NO!" for an answer.

Let off a few rounds into the ceiling to get their attention if they're little slow to understand that you've TAKEN CHARGE OF THE SITUATION there.

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 8:40am:

warrigal wrote on Aug 26th, 2013 at 7:59am: what a ignorant black pig you are Herbert, if you expect people to work provide jobs you ignorant bastard korri There are plenty of jobs going, you White Supremacist park-bench bum! 1. All the Supermarket trolley collectors in Sydney are Arabic, with an increasing number of Negroes. 2. All the security guards at shopping malls are Arabic or Pacific Islanders, with an increasing number of Indians. 3. The Town Centre pavement cleaners in my area have nearly always been Anglo-Australians, with the occasional Sikh Indian. 4. Railway personnel at the stations are a mixed bunch. These are jobs that always have vacancies. Warrigal ~ you racist white bastard ~ go to your local Centrelink office and jump up on the counter with an AK-47 in your hands and DEMAND they give you one of these jobs. Don't take "NO!" for an answer. Let off a few rounds into the ceiling to get their attention if they're little slow to understand that you've TAKEN CHARGE OF THE SITUATION there.

so I have to go to gaol for jumping up and making a scene at a centrelink or job network agency.

what there job network need to learn is respect for the people in this country you ignorant bastard,

all this from you a man that was unemployed before you got your retirement pension.

Australians need a career not just a job, and the employers out their have a obliation to provide a career not just a job.
  ignorant bastard are the only words that disscribe you.

your right there are jobs out there there just not being made available to the white man or the black man, Australians alike.

warrigal wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 8:58am:

....  all this from you a man that was unemployed before you got your retirement pension.

Ah! Now THERE'S something you can do, you white racist KKK Grand Wizard of your local chapter you ~~~ apply at your local Opportunity charity shops for a job as an assistant.

Right up until my Age Pension I worked in a Salvation Army shop looking after the book section, but often unloading the truck at the back with furniture and cartons of donations.

Unpacking stuff at the back too, etc etc.

In the end I was actually sorry I had to leave.

Not hard work, and plenty of good company.


warrigal wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 8:58am:

.... ignorant bastard are the only words that disscribe you.

Look, you piece of white trash ~ When you get a job at St Vincent de Paul, or Anglicare, or the Salvos  ... try not to upset my black brothers and sisters when they come in to buy stuff, okay? And DON'T accuse them of trying to steal stuff ~ OKAY??!

I won't be taking any volunteer job at any wealfare support group.

if I get to work it will be paid work, and I will also take the respect that is due.
your still a ignorant bastard with you rants about the unemployed. AND YET YOU WERE UNEMPLOYED UNTIL THE WHITE GOVERNMENT PROVIDED YOU WITH YOUR KORRI PENSION.
UNEMPLOYED
ie skilled trained and qualified WORKERS THAT ARE DENIED EMPLOYMENT BY IGNORANT BASTARDS LIKE YOURSELF KORRI ELDER HERBERT

Well, I have to admit that my sun-tan as an Aboriginal Elder of the Dharruk tribe has helped to keep me away from, er .. in work.

There would be nothing wrong with you applying for a job as a public toilet janitor at one of our railway stations.

Let us know how your interview goes with the Station Master.

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 3:19pm:

Well, I have to admit that my sun-tan as an Aboriginal Elder of the Dharruk tribe has helped to keep me away from, er .. in work. There would be nothing wrong with you applying for a job as a public toilet janitor at one of our railway stations. Let us know how your interview goes with the Station Master.

Herbet you ignorant bastard,
I won't be applying for a public toilet janitor cleaner anywhere. I wiil be applying for the position I am trained and skilled to do when centrelink gives me my life back and provides a job network agency like anyone else out there is entilled to have.

So I can return to job search, I won't be going on a DSP pension just because a job network case manager wants to get rid of me from there quotata of job seekers.


why are you so ignorant that you still think I am in Sydney , where there is massive unemployed , but lots of jobs in factorys etc.

warrigal wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 6:13am:

Herbet you ignorant bastard, I won't be applying for a public toilet janitor cleaner anywhere.

My very first job in Australia was cleaning the factory toilets of a car muffler and tailpipe manufacturing company called Lanchways in Regent street, Redfern in 1962.

It paid my rent, my cigarettes, and my meals.


warrigal wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 6:13am:

So I can return to job search, I won't be going on a DSP pension just because a job network case manager wants to get rid of me from there quotata of job seekers.

Why not reach a compromise with Centelink by working as a government-paid assistant in one of these charity shops? You won't be required to serve at the counter. You'll be at the back sorting out the clothes and stuff that comes off the trucks.

You get paid through Centrelink, and you'll have a job at the Opportunity Shop forever. Easy work, relaxed atmosphere, casual friends working with you, and a few perks and lurks.


warrigal wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 6:13am:

why are you so ignorant that you still think I am in Sydney , where there is massive unemployed , but lots of jobs in factorys etc.

Wherever you are ~ jobs are available. Join a Casual Work agency in your local area and you'll find yourself doing a little work now and again, but not enough to piss you off.

As a black fella I was never out of work, so for an IGNORANT white BASTARD like you it should be easy to find someone who'll give you a job.

warrigal wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 6:13am:

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 26th, 2013 at 3:19pm: Well, I have to admit that my sun-tan as an Aboriginal Elder of the Dharruk tribe has helped to keep me away from, er .. in work. There would be nothing wrong with you applying for a job as a public toilet janitor at one of our railway stations. Let us know how your interview goes with the Station Master. Herbet you ignorant bastard, I won't be applying for a public toilet janitor cleaner anywhere. I wiil be applying for the position I am trained and skilled to do when centrelink gives me my life back and provides a job network agency like anyone else out there is entilled to have. So I can return to job search, I won't be going on a DSP pension just because a job network case manager wants to get rid of me from there quotata of job seekers. why are you so ignorant that you still think I am in Sydney , where there is massive unemployed , but lots of jobs in factorys etc.

Wazza, don’t tell me your sitting on your fat arse expecting everyone else to get you a job, except yourself?

And now you are telling us that some work is beneath you!!!

You’re the real bludger Wazza.

;)

This topic's become an entertaining sitcom. Haven't laughed this hard in ages lol :)

FriYAY wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 12:34pm:

warrigal wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 6:13am: Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 26th, 2013 at 3:19pm: Well, I have to admit that my sun-tan as an Aboriginal Elder of the Dharruk tribe has helped to keep me away from, er .. in work. There would be nothing wrong with you applying for a job as a public toilet janitor at one of our railway stations. Let us know how your interview goes with the Station Master. Herbet you ignorant bastard, I won't be applying for a public toilet janitor cleaner anywhere. I wiil be applying for the position I am trained and skilled to do when centrelink gives me my life back and provides a job network agency like anyone else out there is entilled to have. So I can return to job search, I won't be going on a DSP pension just because a job network case manager wants to get rid of me from there quotata of job seekers. why are you so ignorant that you still think I am in Sydney , where there is massive unemployed , but lots of jobs in factorys etc. Wazza, don’t tell me your sitting on your fat arse expecting everyone else to get you a job, except yourself? And now you are telling us that some work is beneath you!!! You’re the real bludger Wazza. ;)

and you friyay are a ignorant bastards just like your korri mate elder Herbert.

if a person is trained and skilled for a specific job you provide them with a job.

you can't solve unemployment by ignoring people.


does a doctor get told, no we don't think your capable of doing that, we think you should be a labourer.

it doesn't happen, neither should happen to other trained and skilled workers Ignorant.

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 11:47pm:

This topic's become an entertaining sitcom. Haven't laughed this hard in ages lol :)

another Ignorant BITCH

Learn some respect you IGNORANT BITCH

warrigal wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 6:32am:

FriYAY wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 12:34pm: warrigal wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 6:13am: Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 26th, 2013 at 3:19pm: Well, I have to admit that my sun-tan as an Aboriginal Elder of the Dharruk tribe has helped to keep me away from, er .. in work. There would be nothing wrong with you applying for a job as a public toilet janitor at one of our railway stations. Let us know how your interview goes with the Station Master. Herbet you ignorant bastard, I won't be applying for a public toilet janitor cleaner anywhere. I wiil be applying for the position I am trained and skilled to do when centrelink gives me my life back and provides a job network agency like anyone else out there is entilled to have. So I can return to job search, I won't be going on a DSP pension just because a job network case manager wants to get rid of me from there quotata of job seekers. why are you so ignorant that you still think I am in Sydney , where there is massive unemployed , but lots of jobs in factorys etc. Wazza, don’t tell me your sitting on your fat arse expecting everyone else to get you a job, except yourself? And now you are telling us that some work is beneath you!!! You’re the real bludger Wazza. ;) and you friyay are a ignorant bastards just like your korri mate elder Herbert. if a person is trained and skilled for a specific job you provide them with a job. you can't solve unemployment by ignoring people. does a doctor get told, no we don't think your capable of doing that, we think you should be a labourer. it doesn't happen, neither should happen to other trained and skilled workers Ignorant.

Actually Wazza, if a doctor displayed the same level of mental deterioration as you do, they'd be doctorin' no more...

Anyway, got any interviews lined up today?

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 8:37am:

warrigal wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 6:13am: Herbet you ignorant bastard, I won't be applying for a public toilet janitor cleaner anywhere. My very first job in Australia was cleaning the factory toilets of a car muffler and tailpipe manufacturing company called Lanchways in Regent street, Redfern in 1962. It paid my rent, my cigarettes, and my meals. warrigal wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 6:13am: So I can return to job search, I won't be going on a DSP pension just because a job network case manager wants to get rid of me from there quotata of job seekers. Why not reach a compromise with Centelink by working as a government-paid assistant in one of these charity shops? You won't be required to serve at the counter. You'll be at the back sorting out the clothes and stuff that comes off the trucks. You get paid through Centrelink, and you'll have a job at the Opportunity Shop forever. Easy work, relaxed atmosphere, casual friends working with you, and a few perks and lurks. warrigal wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 6:13am: why are you so ignorant that you still think I am in Sydney , where there is massive unemployed , but lots of jobs in factorys etc. Wherever you are ~ jobs are available. Join a Casual Work agency in your local area and you'll find yourself doing a little work now and again, but not enough to piss you off. As a black fella I was never out of work, so for an IGNORANT white BASTARD like you it should be easy to find someone who'll give you a job.

that's the problem ignorant, I am denied access to a new job network or even to a private job agency , because  I am still being held by my last job network, (under centrelink) the one that refuses to help me but won't release me so I can go to another. I can't go to a casual work agency because our government centrelink won't allow it. I am just being told by the centrelink managers and their loopy phycologists that I have to go on a dsp pension.

I will not be going on a dsp pension, I will be getting respect and work.

learn some respect ignorants

newstart allowance is not a wage. if a person is trained and qualified to work you provide them with work.

if they do nothing to help people a ignorant Australian government will never solve unemployment.


unemployment has one purpose it destroys peoples lives, if you do nothing to stop it, it will destroy more peoples lives even those that do work. even you friyay, and lisa and you too korri


kick down doors and make the available obs available to the job seekers.

The Heartless Felon wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 6:37am:

warrigal wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 6:32am: FriYAY wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 12:34pm: warrigal wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 6:13am: Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 26th, 2013 at 3:19pm: Well, I have to admit that my sun-tan as an Aboriginal Elder of the Dharruk tribe has helped to keep me away from, er .. in work. There would be nothing wrong with you applying for a job as a public toilet janitor at one of our railway stations. Let us know how your interview goes with the Station Master. Herbet you ignorant bastard, I won't be applying for a public toilet janitor cleaner anywhere. I wiil be applying for the position I am trained and skilled to do when centrelink gives me my life back and provides a job network agency like anyone else out there is entilled to have. So I can return to job search, I won't be going on a DSP pension just because a job network case manager wants to get rid of me from there quotata of job seekers. why are you so ignorant that you still think I am in Sydney , where there is massive unemployed , but lots of jobs in factorys etc. Wazza, don’t tell me your sitting on your fat arse expecting everyone else to get you a job, except yourself? And now you are telling us that some work is beneath you!!! You’re the real bludger Wazza. ;) and you friyay are a ignorant bastards just like your korri mate elder Herbert. if a person is trained and skilled for a specific job you provide them with a job. you can't solve unemployment by ignoring people. does a doctor get told, no we don't think your capable of doing that, we think you should be a labourer. it doesn't happen, neither should happen to other trained and skilled workers Ignorant. Actually Wazza, if a doctor displayed the same level of mental deterioration as you do, they'd be doctorin' no more... Anyway, got any interviews lined up today?

no bastard because I have no access to job search, I am just forced to live like a dsp pensioner.

you friyay have obviously never been unemployed , so you don't understand how the job search system in Australia works.

if you were to become unemployed today, the next day you would be entilled to register for nsa payement. with that you are given a job network to support you to find employment, and that is the very thing denied to me because a centrelink phycologist has made a decession to stick me on a permanent job capacity assessment diening me access to a job network for job search. activities. just left unemployed and treated like a dsp pensioner. not to be helped.

warrigal wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 7:55am:

[ no bastard because I have no access to job search, I am just forced to live like a dsp pensioner.

You have the same access to jobs as the rest of us do, stop demanding someone else find you a job and get off your fat lazy arse and do what we do, get your own job.


www.careerone.com.au

www.seek.com.au


Get started and stop fvcken whinging, you sound like a petulant child.

warrigal wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 10:12am:

you friyay have obviously never been unemployed , so you don't understand how the job search system in Australia works. if you were to become unemployed today, the next day you would be entilled to register for nsa payement. with that you are given a job network to support you to find employment, and that is the very thing denied to me because a centrelink phycologist has made a decession to stick me on a permanent job capacity assessment diening me access to a job network for job search. activities. just left unemployed and treated like a dsp pensioner. not to be helped.

I have been unemployed a few times, never been to the dole office looking for a job. That could be your problem.

warrigal wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 10:12am:

you friyay have obviously never been unemployed , so you don't understand how the job search system in Australia works. if you were to become unemployed today, the next day you would be entilled to register for nsa payement. with that you are given a job network to support you to find employment, and that is the very thing denied to me because a centrelink phycologist has made a decession to stick me on a permanent job capacity assessment diening me access to a job network for job search. activities. just left unemployed and treated like a dsp pensioner. not to be helped.

As I have said before, I was unemployed about 4 years ago.

First job I did was reading water meters, then I got a job at a winery during vintage.

I helped 3 mates with their CV’s and they are now working in the mines.

The employment networks were a waste of my time.

I got a job doing OHS and Compliance at a local transport company – after 8 months I got my current job as Quality, Health Safety and Environment Manager at a wine bottling facility.

No one helped me, I went and found the work myself – and did ANY sort of work – not just what I was “qualified” to do.


You on the other hand – are a bludger. ;)

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 10:25am:

warrigal wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 7:55am: [ no bastard because I have no access to job search, I am just forced to live like a dsp pensioner. You have the same access to jobs as the rest of us do, stop demanding someone else find you a job and get off your fat lazy arse and do what we do, get your own job. www.careerone.com.au www.seek.com.au Get started and stop fvcken whinging, you sound like a petulant child.

your comment aren't needed big arshole

when I am given back my job network , I can then return to job serach using the things you list, until then I am like a dsp pensioner. stuck in limbo by a country that doesn't care.

any more stupifd advise ignorant.

if you expect people to work make jobs available to them. its the only way to solve unemployment ignorant.

make the job fit the unemployed person qualifications.