thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 1
st, 2024 at 11:34am:
2 errors there:
1. Disadvantaged people need more help than non-disadvantaged (by definition), if we wish to close the gap.
2. All government spending, including payments for health, education, public infrastructure and pensions for all citizens is "taxpayer funded".
Disadvantaged people need support so that they do not starve, be homeless, have no access to medical treatment, and security. Unless they are severely impaired physically or mentally, then they are capable of being upwardly mobile socioeconomically. It all comes down to attitude.
I am a taxpayer. I might only pay 1/10th that of tax that other taxpayers pay, but I seem to pay more tax than what the moochers of society are paying. Imagine working 20 hours a week and paying some tax, whilst 'treading water' financially to stay above the poverty line. Others work twice or even three times as many hours as I do to have a good standard of living, whilst paying a lot of income tax (amongst other expenses). Whereas, there are those that pay very little tax, and live a lifestyle where they don't work, and get better housing treatment than I do. That is where it is unfair for me.
Quote:Fairness means closing the gap, something most Ozzies are in favour of.
Dad worked 45 hours per week. Mum went back to work when my brother was starting preschool. We went from a low-income family to a middle income family inside 12 months. It seems unfair that other people have it so good by comparison. But, they had it so good because they were working skilled jobs that were in demand and required professionals to do them. So, if Dad worked a better job or was more professional in his intention to upskill when he was growing up, we would be better off.
And so, when indigenous people grew up with this lack of ambition to upskill their lives, it is no wonder that they belong to a demographic that sits at or near the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. And now we have to deal with racist black African people who think they have the right to murder old ladies for their car.
USR:
Quote:Let us face it, if the newly formed (early 20th century) Australian government did not decide to save indigenous people, we might well see indigenous people a part of history books, but not part of modern history.
tgd:
Quote:Would they have merely starved to death?
Even Brian thinks that indigenous Australians being dispossessed of their hunting grounds would be reasonable to conclude genocide would have happened, had the newly formed Australian government not tried to save the indigenous people. There were reportedly 50,000 indigenous Australians left alive in 1900. Now there are over 900,000 in the year 2024. Given that a considerable amount of those 900,000 are about as caucasian as I am, I would suggest that they only identify as indigenous because of the benefits that indigenous people get exclusive to non-indigenous Australians.