Elaugaufein
Member
It's like someone wanted to give me an example of the perverse incentives for a textbook. Shame my field is Computer Science not Economics.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
2014 Australian Government Budget |OT| Throw some debt on the barbie
- Thread starter mjontrix
- Start date
- Status
It's like someone wanted to give me an example of the perverse incentives for a textbook. Shame my field is Computer Science not Economics.
If they're closing down, can you name and shame them?
Aarglefarg
Member
I would feel uncomfortable as it would identify who I am.
Sorry I realise my question was a bit ambiguous. Can you not take them to fair work australia or some such regulatory body and get a ruling on whether they were technically screwing you over?
Palmer's interview this morning was pretty entertaining
He may be a crazy rich madman but he's not afraid to spit game
He may be a crazy rich madman but he's not afraid to spit game
Aarglefarg
Member
I could try, but that it didn't end up happening would probably mean they can't do anything. I mentioned it to Centrelink (when finding out how it would affect my payments) and they didn't respond like it was suspect.
Thanks, that made it clear. So I will have to work for the dole when im on the 6 month "have hand outs" but when im on the 6 months of not getting handouts I dont.
Fuck it. I'll go live on a farm.
I dont think its in centrelink's area of responsibility to investigate that? If youre doing paid work as in a job, and that is being gamed so you work a portion of that for free in WFTD, that to me seems dangerously close to the concept of 'unpaid trial periods' of work.
If I understand you correctly, I'd be seeking advice.
Aarglefarg
Member
I'll do so. It's not Centrelink's responsibility to investigate it, but that it seemed normal to them made me think it wasn't illegal.
5 hours a day over a (working) week. There are 24 hours in a day. You sleep for 8. You've got 11 hours a day to look for work. Thats 87 a week. Come on son.
Yep. None of this eating, cooking, taking care of others, or leisure time malarky. You best be job searching every second of your goddamn life until you get off the government teet
I wonder how people who are already employed full time find newer, better jobs.
Networking, usually.
Judging from the internet usage I've had the privilege to see over the years they look for them while they're at work.
Have a look at him. Does he look like he understands *anything* about mobility? He needed lapband surgery, for fuck's sake.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
My concern with work for the dole has less to do with time and more to do with effectiveness as well as stress it imprints on the person as they have to meet yet more requirements just so they can eat food and pay rent. The only argument that should support "work for the dole" is on that suggest by being in a state of employment legitimate job hunters will find it easier to get into employment than those without commitments. Data suggests probability of finding work increases when you already have recent employment, but I'm not entirely confident that data correlates with "work for the dole".
If it doesn't then it's basically a means of forced labour: people in vulnerable positions work X hours a week for a company that will not pay them, just to secure their welfare which is already below minimum wage, a commitment that infringes in otherwise free time/money with no promise of employment or formal certification at the end.
The objective of work for the dole should be exclusively to get people jobs. As in real jobs, not work for the dole jobs. If it's being used as a form of punishment or commitment for the sake of commitment then we're seriously fucked up.
If it doesn't then it's basically a means of forced labour: people in vulnerable positions work X hours a week for a company that will not pay them, just to secure their welfare which is already below minimum wage, a commitment that infringes in otherwise free time/money with no promise of employment or formal certification at the end.
The objective of work for the dole should be exclusively to get people jobs. As in real jobs, not work for the dole jobs. If it's being used as a form of punishment or commitment for the sake of commitment then we're seriously fucked up.
Man, I admire your ability to stick with that. Sounds like a horrible position to be in. And I'd wager that there are hundreds of other businesses similarly taking advantage of the scheme. Disgusting.
chicko1983
Member
It should be something like if you are an employer and have people working for the dole for you, if that position has been filled by work for the dole people for over a year, or six months by the same person, you have to hire someone in that position.
I don't know how it currently works, but I don't think you should be able to the same position for an extended period of time under work for the dole.
I don't know how it currently works, but I don't think you should be able to the same position for an extended period of time under work for the dole.
Yeah, can't hurt to ask. Assuming you aren't going to be working with them in future and its not going to harm future employment concerns/prospects, it might be worth checking.
At the very least you might become more aware of what circumstances to be suspicious of, and in the current environment that might be a valuable lesson.
Is that your own idea or something you are repeating that you heard elsewhere? Because it's a fucking good one.
They ugh... got them from an employment office? Yeah that's all I've got.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/14/this-budget-is-a-clear-victory-for-australias-1
Also here is John Quiggin (one of the best economists in the country) on how the budget favors the rich in ways not previously discussed.
I've heard something similar with regards to 457 Visas. It is a pretty good idea.
chicko1983
Member
Its my own idea, thanks.
I barely watch anything other than sport and so got into the office today and everyone was talking about the budget, I kinda felt like I should take some interest in it as I am an engineer and my work gets 90% of its work from government infrastructure spending.
I have been reading this thread tonight to try and get a jist of other people's reaction to the budget.
My workplace is pretty conservative, probably lots of people who voted Liberal and the general feeling was the budget was good because of the potential work we will receive from the government spending.
However reading this thread has opened my eyes a bit. I had no idea about how the work for the dole system works because its something that I haven't had much to do with, touch wood.
Reading this thread has made me feel like I am possibly the only Liberal voter on GAF though!
Or this.
I think you (as in people in general) also have to think beyond 'the economy' with your voting. Have a social conscience.
roosters93
Member
Hah holy shit
Hockey gets a question about whether the government's 'sharing the burden' rationale fails on two grounds. One, the deficit tax is a relatively small an impost on higher income earners compared to the imposts faced by those on welfare or on lower incomes; and two, it's an impost that will only last three years, whereas the impost on those on lower income and reliant on welfare is permanent?
Hockey:
Hopefully it's not permanent for people who rely on welfare. Hopefully with family payments, their children grow up. The fact they will have a permanent impact is wrong.
With logic like that he might as well say nothing is permanent. Death is coming for all of us. Existence is only temporary.
I agree, aussies aren't quite so deluded in their financial aspiration that they'll endorse policies for the rich because they want those policies for themselves later when they make it.
It'll be interesting to see if Abbott & Hockey can keep making budgets that skimp on health and education and throw dirt in the face's of pensioners, the poor and the young. Now if they only put in some middle class welfare like late Howard too they just might get away with it!
I totally thought you were serious heh
Candescence
Member
Palmer: "Hey, a double dissolution election wouldn't be such a bad idea, since the people can vote based on what the Liberals are actually doing rather than the lies."
Oh, boy. Considering PUP are united with Labor and the Greens on blocking multiple critical budget measures without compromise, a DD looks like it's becoming more and more likely.
Oh, boy. Considering PUP are united with Labor and the Greens on blocking multiple critical budget measures without compromise, a DD looks like it's becoming more and more likely.
I thought Labor would never force a DD as a matter of principle since the Whitlam dismissal?
But Hockey's Policies ARE GOOD POLICIES *repeat ad nauseum*
I mean, you're not really meant to say anything else when defending your budget to a journo, but that was some transparent-ass bullshit
DD's for everyone!
That would be a first in a long time. Would be a case study in political science in this country for decades.
Blocking the budget is a pretty serious threat which I doubt either Labor or the Greens will do.
Uhh, I'm not really knowledgeable on such things, but wouldn't Abbott, have much much more to lose then any of the minor parties?
This is true but both Labor and the Greens would get slaughtered if they tried to block the budget.
Candescence
Member
The wild card that is Palmer has given them the perfect excuse, however. The Coalition have been absolutely tanking in the polls.
Does a vote require an actual majority, or would a tie be enough to prevent passage? Because I've noticed that, if Labor, Greens and PUP vote against, and everyone else votes for the budget (which I imagine is highly unlikely, there's probably at least one other crossbencher who will vote against), the numbers would result in a tie.
Fraser did the same thing, and Whitlam got slaughtered at the election despite far more favorable conditions. If the people consider it a bad budget and Labor/Greens present a better set of policies, they could potentially crush the Coalition.
Bullshit, it's not serious, Parliament having control of the budget was the entire raison d'être of the English civil war and it was noted in Pape v Commonwealth that the ability of Parliament to decide the budget is their ancient and sovereign responsibility.
A budget is for the Parliament, not the executive to decide. The fact that we've got this so backwards in Australia is endlessly frustrating.
You can brand the whole 'no taxation without representation' as a wartime slogan of crazy Americans but the fact of the matter is that the entire idea of taxes only being levied by locally elected representatives has a history that stretches back to the late 1300s.
A budget is for the Parliament, not the executive to decide. The fact that we've got this so backwards in Australia is endlessly frustrating.
You can brand the whole 'no taxation without representation' as a wartime slogan of crazy Americans but the fact of the matter is that the entire idea of taxes only being levied by locally elected representatives has a history that stretches back to the late 1300s.
Labor and the Greens would be enough to stop the budget. PUP have no say since they don't come to the Senate til July.
When Fraser did what he did it did not come without great political cost and risk. He only took it knowing that Whitlam was deeply unpopular (far more so than Abbott now) and that he would win an election in any circumstance.
Section 23 of the Australian Constitution basically says that in the event of a tied vote, the question is resolved in the negative.
Whether or not any party decides to push for a DD is entirely dependant on how confident they can get a clear majority. Labor still has a lot of hangover to deal with from carbon/mining taxes and fallout from ICAC revelations and the royal commission into insulator deaths.
Liberals will be watching the polls on this budget. There is no way they wont compromise if their 2PP vote bombs to wii u levels.
Liberals will be watching the polls on this budget. There is no way they wont compromise if their 2PP vote bombs to wii u levels.
NinjaTehFish
Banned
I live in Frankston, Melbourne. For those not familiar lets just say the place has a reputation. These budget changes will turn this place into a slum, let alone my birth state Tasmania. What the fuck are these cunt sacks thinking.
The budget is not decided by the executive since the House of Reps does vote on the budget (in theory). The Senate is not supposed to determine the make up of the house of reps or who is the government of the day. In Britain the House of Lords would never under any circumstance block a budget passed by the Commons.
Candescence
Member
Still, regardless of what exactly happens and why, I want to see a DD happen purely for the political shitstorm that'll ensue. That train will have no brakes.
I do sort of agree but at the same time, Labor currently has some momentum. It would be a shame to see it all die if they tried to pull 1975.
You are correct, but the analogy kind of falls down.
In approx 1435(don't quote me on the year) the Commons (as it was known then) argued in front of the Lords the Bishops and the Royals that since they were the ones who represented those who paid taxes, it was their sole power to levy taxes and authorise spending. (Edit: It wasn't so much as an 'argument' as a flat out demand otherwise the Commons would rise up and have their heads).
That is reflected in the current UK constitution, the American Constitution, the Canadian Constitution and ours. This is a principle that has been running unbroken for around 700 years.
The issue is that the upper chambers of the UK, the US and Canada were designed as aristocratic houses which weren't there to represent the taxpayer. They were there sort of as a ruling house institution.
That isn't particularly well reflected here where we set out from the beginning to create a state based upper chamber based on proportional representation. (The American Senate became this later on with direct election of Senators and we copied their second purpose as a state representative body). However we kept as much of our shared common law inheritance as we could.
The Senate in each system (except for the UK) has the ability to the budget, if not supply entirely. It's not unheard of for this to happen throughout history.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked