|
LibertyCat posted:What do numbers have to do with my statement? Conceptually if you take things from society (that others have worked to create) but never give anything back, it's a deficit. If I'd said dole-bludgers were costing us $X per year, we could debate that, but I don't have numbers handy. I honestly can't think of a way to reply to this politely. People aren't formed in a vacuum, and they absorb bad habits. When you look at life through the lens of having little to live for, any small vice becomes a port in a storm. It just so happens that a lot of australias gambling is done through those shiny machines, and the corporate lobby that fights to get more and more and more of them out there, so that it can soak up all the spare money from small towns.
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 12:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
Higsian posted:Why are they long-term unemployed and why do you absolve society of all blame and place it entirely on the long-term unemployed individually? Some people are just Bastards who will never follow directions and will steal everything that isn't nailed down. Some were raised with zero work ethic in families where no-one has worked in generations. Unless you want to re-enact the stolen generation and take kids away from families stuck in the poverty cycle I'm not sure what the solution is. I like Thatcher's comments RE society.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 12:56
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:What do numbers have to do with my statement? libertarian economics.txt
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 12:58
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:What do numbers have to do with my statement? Conceptually if you take things from society (that others have worked to create) but never give anything back, it's a deficit. If I'd said dole-bludgers were costing us $X per year, we could debate that, but I don't have numbers handy. The long term unemployed don't spend all their money on goods and services which helps keep the economy going unlike the barons of capital who spend every cent they make on hiring more workers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 13:00
|
|
|
The long-term unemployed never earned that money in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 13:01
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:I like Thatcher's comments RE society. Who among us could have guessed? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 13:01
|
|
|
What is your solution for the long term unemployed?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 13:01
|
|
|
tithin posted:What is your solution for the long term unemployed? Have we tried raise the GST and kill all the poor?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 13:03
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:The long-term unemployed never earned that money in the first place. So what.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 13:03
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:If you're a taxpayer the long-term unemployed are drinking the coffee you made Well yeah but I sell coffee so that's cool. And as nice as getting a better tax return sounds you're suggesting we don't pay enough for a lot of the unemployed to buy my coffee anymore, you're suggesting firing the customers I have who work with those people. Unless other people start drinking more coffee in response to this I might have to fire a lot of baristas, and all because we implemented reform based on someone's personal philosophy on how to treat people.  LibertyCat posted:Perhaps business owners could afford to employ more staff if they paid less tax. Perhaps people could afford to buy more things, generating additional demand, if less money got spent on paper-pushers. In my hypothetical cafe, the shareholders would skin me alive if I either: A) Hired more people purely because we had some profit laying around or B) refused to hire people who would increase profits because I didn't have enough profit laying around. Sure there's cases where the line is blurred or there hasn't been enough market research done but assuming this would cover the disappearance of the multiple industries associated with unemployment seems beyond optimistic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 13:04
|
|
|
Starshark posted:So what. So if the money was "given" (by Tax cuts etc) to working people instead, the economic effect would be exactly the same but at least it's the people that contribute to society that benefit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 13:06
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:What do numbers have to do with my statement? Mr Chips fucked around with this message at 13:09 on Mar 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 13:07
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:So if the money was "given" (by Tax cuts etc) to working people instead, the economic effect would be exactly the same but at least it's the people that contribute to society that benefit. Wrong, see my previous statements on this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 13:07
|
|
|
We need a final solution to the unemployment problem
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 13:08
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:So if the money was "given" (by Tax cuts etc) to working people instead, the economic effect would be exactly the same but at least it's the people that contribute to society that benefit. If you want to maximise the economic growth created by government spending you give it to people with the least money and thus the highest marginal utility for that payment, learn some basic loving economics you idiot cretin
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 13:09
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:So if the money was "given" (by Tax cuts etc) to working people instead, the economic effect would be exactly the same but at least it's the people that contribute to society that benefit. And in the meantime, what happens to the long term unemployed?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
Solemn Sloth posted:learn some basic loving economics you idiot cretin
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
Gentleman Baller posted:Well yeah but I sell coffee so that's cool. quote:And as nice as getting a better tax return sounds you're suggesting we don't pay enough for a lot of the unemployed to buy my coffee anymore, you're suggesting firing the customers I have who work with those people. Unless other people start drinking more coffee in response to this I might have to fire a lot of baristas, and all because we implemented reform based on someone's personal philosophy on how to treat people. If we slashed red tape, the people producing the red tape and closely linked industries will suffer, for the benefit of the majority. We didn't outlaw cars to keep the buggy whip manufactures in business. quote:In my hypothetical cafe, the shareholders would skin me alive if I either: A) Hired more people purely because we had some profit laying around or B) refused to hire people who would increase profits because I didn't have enough profit laying around. Sure there's cases where the line is blurred or there hasn't been enough market research done but assuming this would cover the disappearance of the multiple industries associated with unemployment seems beyond optimistic. What about if payroll tax was slashed so it was now cheaper for you to hire additional people, and made economic sense?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:Sounds reasonable to me? I don't want the average joe having a bit of hard luck to be punished. Trust them that they're looking for work, and don't treat them like an infant. LibertyCat posted:Given there is only finite money to spend on the unemployed, who would you rather see it go to - John the mechanic (unemployed for 4 months because the company he worked for went broke) and friends, or Barry the perpetual screw-up who won't work and has no desire to try? Given the choice I'd rather benefit the 90% of unemployed who aren't deadbeats. LibertyCat posted:The dept of Human Services spent around ~$2,800 million on staffing expenses in 2014-2015. Under my proposal a huge amount of bureaucracy (and taxpayer expense) would be slashed. By trusting that most people do the right thing while claiming benefits, you can gut a lot of red-tape enforcers and stop wasting an enormous amount of everyone's time. Sure some people would cheat the system but the looming deadline of "survival only" benefits should spook them, and they couldn't possibly skim more than you'd save on red-tape. LibertyCat posted:What do numbers have to do with my statement? Conceptually if you take things from society (that others have worked to create) but never give anything back, it's a deficit. If I'd said dole-bludgers were costing us $X per year, we could debate that, but I don't have numbers handy. First of all, we have to recognise that economies only function when money is moving around. Changing hands. Person A spends money at Store B, which then spends that money in turn on wages for Staff Member C and supplies at Supply Company D and so on. Problems occur when money accrues in a few places and doesn't move around. This is why poor market confidence causes the market to contract. "We don't want to spend money here" logically results in there being less money circulating. Next we have the falsehood that poor people, or "dole-bludgers" as you put it, don't give anything back to society, don't contribute. Poor people, especially those on Centrelink benefits such as myself, spend practically every cent they get. Usually on staples such as food, rent, and utilities. In fact, in a lot of cases what we unemployed are paid actually falls below these requirements. I'm a lucky in that I don;t have to pay rent which gives me a lot more leeway than others on the dole. In this way we contribute greatly to the economy by providing the sales that pay the wages of employees, and the profits that allow for business expansion. Simply cutting us all off, or just reducing our incomes in any significant manner would have two immediate repercussions: 1: You would have a massive explosion in the crime rate, as people are forced to steal and/or hurt others to survive because most of us are right at the breaking point already. 2: You would immediately cut exactly as much money as you saved out of the bottom of the economy. The whole pokies issue is irrelevant to this basic set of facts, though if you do some reading on the subject you'll find that those machines tend to be clustered in areas where the poors are, and also that the government has worked very hard to help the pokie industry out. As has been pointed out when they last came up in here: The machines are designed to be addictive, and also to ensure that the house wins. Using the image of the poor who goes and throws all their money in the pokies as a stereotype to write off the rest is at best unfair, and at worst deliberately misleading. Finally, the amount of money saved by hunting down non-compliant people on the dole is dwarfed by the amount of money pissed away on investigating it. The whole Centrelink system has, under the guidance of the LNP and the Labor right, become an apparatus for punishing the poor and unemployed for being poor and unemployed. Ever increasing compliance requirements, threats, huge wait times on phones and in person, constantly being subject to interviews that cajole and threaten you, and the creation of an entire for-profit Job service sector that they are now trying to give the ability to issue spot fines. It is no wonder many people in the system have mental health problems. If you want to look at the root cause of problems for our economy, the place you should be looking is not at government spending on welfare and health, but at tax avoidance by both the rich and multinationals who, unlike the poor, do not put the money they earn back to work in the economy, but hoard it in ever greater piles as part of their eternal dickwaving contest. The poor here are just being scapegoated by the rich so they can keep growing their hoards. tl;dr: When it comes to the economy Spending is good, hoarding is bad. Money needs to circulate and the government is the biggest show in town on that count.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 13:13
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:If I take $5 from your till, and then use it to buy a coffee from you, you are not 1 coffee's profit richer. You have effectively given me a coffee for free. If however you take that $5 from an unemployed person who was going to buy a coffee and give it to the wealthy business owner standing behind him, who already had the $5 for a coffee, his coffee shop just lost $5.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 13:13
|
|
|
Pickled Tink posted:I'm just quoting all of these because they display the attitude commonplace of a lot of people who don't actually think about the economics of it. They see expenditure and think "bad" and that is the end of that. Not necessarily malicious, but a result of poor understanding of economic theory and, of course, the result of a sustained campaign of misinformation portraying spending as bad, especially on poor people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 13:18
|
|
|
Mr Chips posted:Because of pragmatism, something that used to be a strong Australian characteristic. If we end up tying ourselves in knots over hypothetical edge-case ex;ploits in the welfare system, we run the very real risk of punishing people who really need help (hello screaming llama Which is exactly why I am proposing markedly less hoops to jump through for the short-term unemployed. Less time-wasting crap for job-seekers, less staff needed to administrate said crap. Less needing to justify a million edge cases and less people to make the decision. quote:Plus there's plenty of psychological evidence that punishing people already in stress from poverty, and lacking fulfilment from being positive participants in society, is entirely counter-productive. If you've been unemployed for a decade I think realistically - tough titties, see a doctor to find out if you have a mental condition, if not & you're a lazy sack of poo poo enjoy eating 2 minute noodles every night.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 13:20
|
|
|
Go write out "the economy is not a household budget" 500 times and come back to us
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 13:20
|
|
|
I think he has me on ignore
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 13:21
|
|
|
He's not even proposing anything new, the requirements JSAs put on long term unemployed are much more onerous than those on people who have just lost their job recently.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 13:24
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:if you've been unemployed for a decade I think realistically - tough titties, see a doctor to find out if you have a mental condition, if not & you're a lazy sack of poo poo enjoy eating 2 minute noodles every night. ahh...so it is all about the feels (mainly spite), and not about an effective welfare system. An effective welfare system isn't about punishing people who I feel might me taking advantage of it/me Mr Chips fucked around with this message at 13:32 on Mar 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 13:29
|
|
|
Just going to leave this here
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 13:33
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:He's not even proposing anything new, the requirements JSAs put on long term unemployed are much more onerous than those on people who have just lost their job recently. Full disclosure, I have been unemployed for eight years, and doing volunteer work for almost five and a half.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 13:36
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:If you've been unemployed for a decade I think realistically - tough titties, see a doctor to find out if you have a mental condition, if not & you're a lazy sack of poo poo enjoy eating 2 minute noodles every night. Commit crimes, or die badly in the public health system - both of which results in far higher costs? Comstar fucked around with this message at 13:43 on Mar 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 13:37
|
|
|
Pickled Tink: If you have medical issues, please understand I am not talking about you. If so please do not take this personally.Pickled Tink posted:Next we have the falsehood that poor people, or "dole-bludgers" as you put it, don't give anything back to society, don't contribute. Poor people, especially those on Centrelink benefits such as myself, spend practically every cent they get. Usually on staples such as food, rent, and utilities. In fact, in a lot of cases what we unemployed are paid actually falls below these requirements. I'm a lucky in that I don;t have to pay rent which gives me a lot more leeway than others on the dole. In this way we contribute greatly to the economy by providing the sales that pay the wages of employees, and the profits that allow for business expansion. No. Spending other people's money is not contributing. This is eating food others have grown/packed/transported/served, paying rent on a house that other people have bought&maintained, and using utilities that others have worked hard to repair in thunderstorms, all without doing anything positive to contribute back. quote:Simply cutting us all off, or just reducing our incomes in any significant manner would have two immediate repercussions: This is why I have not said to cut people off completely - just spend enough to keep them alive, nothing more. If you will seriously commit a crime because you can't afford to see DeadPool, you deserve jail. quote:2: You would immediately cut exactly as much money as you saved out of the bottom of the economy. I would much rather these resources be spent on, say, legitimate refugees, because in the long-term you would get productive people out of it. They also need to eat/pay rent/pay utilities etc. quote:Finally, the amount of money saved by hunting down non-compliant people on the dole is dwarfed by the amount of money pissed away on investigating it. Which is why I want to simplify it to a time-based system. Short-term unemployed? No problems, here's your money, see you next week. Long-term unemployed? Here's your bag of rice, see you next week.. quote:The whole Centrelink system has, under the guidance of the LNP and the Labor right, become an apparatus for punishing the poor and unemployed for being poor and unemployed. Ever increasing compliance requirements, threats, huge wait times on phones and in person, constantly being subject to interviews that cajole and threaten you, and the creation of an entire for-profit Job service sector that they are now trying to give the ability to issue spot fines. It is no wonder many people in the system have mental health problems. Please see above. I want short-term jobseekers to avoid this nonsense. quote:If you want to look at the root cause of problems for our economy, the place you should be looking is not at government spending on welfare and health, but at tax avoidance by both the rich and multinationals who, unlike the poor, do not put the money they earn back to work in the economy, but hoard it in ever greater piles as part of their eternal dickwaving contest. The poor here are just being scapegoated by the rich so they can keep growing their hoards. Tax avoidance isn't illegal. I would like to see huge multinationals paying their own fair share though. Perhaps a place to start is not making money spent fighting the ATO an expense for tax reasons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
This has been bugging me for a while, people talking about this utopia where if the welfare system was abolished everyone would get jobs because they would have to. Well we know how this would work out, look at 19th Century England.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 13:41
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:If I take $5 from your till, and then use it to buy a coffee from you, you are not 1 coffee's profit richer. You have effectively given me a coffee for free. Okay sure, except I'm assuming you do agree that the government isn't going to give each business tax benefits inversely proportional to the amount of money they'll lose if this happens so we're still talking about massive, massive flow on effects of unemployment. LibertyCat posted:If we slashed red tape, the people producing the red tape and closely linked industries will suffer, for the benefit of the majority. We didn't outlaw cars to keep the buggy whip manufactures in business. For the benefit of the majority is the thing we disagree about here, yeah. LibertyCat posted:What about if payroll tax was slashed so it was now cheaper for you to hire additional people, and made economic sense? If you eliminate it completely that's just ~5% one part of a business's expenses. And we're talking about an unheard of shift in demographics. I don't think most businesses would to jump on it vs waiting and seeing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 13:43
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:This has been bugging me for a while, people talking about this utopia where if the welfare system was abolished everyone would get jobs because they would have to. Well we know how this would work out, look at 19th Century England. Or even 18th Century England when they sent people to the colonies because they had so many frickin' people with no jobs starting poo poo on their hands.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 13:49
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:This is why I have not said to cut people off completely - just spend enough to keep them alive, nothing more. If you will seriously commit a crime because you can't afford to see DeadPool, you deserve jail. What do you mean by "just alive", and how much does it cost to keep someone in that state?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 13:50
|
|
|
Starshark posted:Or even 18th Century England when they sent people to the colonies because they had so many frickin' people with no jobs starting poo poo on their hands. Man those colonies must have turned into absolute shitholes 200-300 years later.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 13:50
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:Pickled Tink: If you have medical issues, please understand I am not talking about you. If so please do not take this personally. Are you aware that the current payment levels are very close to if not below "just enough to keep someone alive". Also if you give someone 10 dollars and they pump that 10 dollars immediately back into the economy they are doing their job in the economy. If you give someone 10 dollars and they hoard it like a dragon they are damaging the economy. So an unemployed person isn't "not contributing" by existing, by renting a house, by buying clothes and electricity and food and god forbid even some small luxuries they are doing far more for the economy than that money going to a rich person would. Without consumption the economy grinds to a halt, even if you have no job if you are consuming you are helping. If they have no money to consume and start starving on the street and clogging up emergency depts because they can't afford preventative care or committing crimes that is the point at which they are actually damaging. Please learn about how an economy works. Because this: LibertyCat posted:If I take $5 from your till, and then use it to buy a coffee from you, you are not 1 coffee's profit richer. You have effectively given me a coffee for free. is literally "I have no idea what an economy is".
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
toe shoes posted:Suck poo poo unemployed goons Lets create an even more perverse incentive for job agencies to force people into dogshit, agency-run training programs. I don't understand how you can draft this policy (with knowledge of the current policy) and think it is a good idea to give agencies even more tools to assist rorting a funding model rife with corruption. You may as well set piles of money on fire.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
I am declaring my intention to become a voluntarily unemployed parasite due to the trifling issue of being held up at machete and cleaver point at my job 90 minutes ago. Huff a fart catman
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
LibertyCat posted:Pickled Tink: If you have medical issues, please understand I am not talking about you. If so please do not take this personally. ok fuckface, first: how is it that buying 200million dollar planes to drop hundreds of 80k bombs halfway across the world never questioned but feeding the poor in our nation is seen as an unforgivable sin second: the current newstart is not survivable, due to a fuckup on the dhs side i was not granted disability (fortunately since rectified) and actually ended up with serious health issues from long term malnutrition because i could not afford an even remotely balanced diet, my skin was yellow and i would bruise from sitting on unpadded chair or when i would see my parents (who could thankfully afford to throw a few tins of food my way) and the dog jumped up to see me it would bruise my legs. The only saving grace is that i got really good at shoplifting. so how dare you suggest that its cushy. third: lets look at what happens when my parents get their tax return vs me and my dole money parents: savings or towards the already overheated housing market me:vegetables and rice from the local market. i dont have a fancy econ degree but i understand economics enough to see which one is better for the economy fourth: even disability payment is not enough, for example i cant afford the only medication that works for me so i buy weed instead. (80 buckos a month instead of 280~). any issue i have with my car it takes me a few months to recover and god help me if something else springs up in the mean time. fifth: money put into the hands of the underclass is usually spent immediately due to various psychological reasons. six: the idea that people on newstart for long periods of time are somehow lazy or like being on newstart is straight up bullshit and echoes the dogwhistle terms used in the united states (welfare queen) seven: PEOPLE DESERVE SOME LEVEL OF DIGNITY YOU loving oval office. E: im sure you arent an awful person in real life but try a fun experiment: put everything but the newstart allowance into savings and see how long you last without health issues.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
Solemn Sloth posted:I am declaring my intention to become a voluntarily unemployed parasite due to the trifling issue of being held up at machete and cleaver point at my job 90 minutes ago. Huff a fart catman That sucks man. Hope you are OK.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 15:40
|
|
