Don't do it

[martinw-48]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-15/renewed-calls-to-increase-newstart/11308340

What would I do if I could afford to replace my broken heater.
I'd miss all the shivering and chatter of teeth.
It's been so enjoyable these last seventeen years
I'd go crazy with the extra time on my hands if I could afford to buy a washing machine.
Twenty years of washing by hand has made sure that the Devil does not get access to my idle hands.
I'll become a rampant criminal with a washing machine in my life.
How dare anyone threaten my love of going to bed with an empty stomach.
I'd definitely be outraged if the government gave me more money to eat.
Definitely would be upset about waiting less than five years for a dental check up
I'd miss all the fun of trying to find clothes in my size at op shops.
That feeling of dread that I might not make it to my appointment with my Job Network Member as the needle of the fuel gauge approaches the E before I'm near town.
How dare anyone take that gut wrenching stress away.
I wouldn't feel alive.
The hunger pains
The feeling in the pit of your stomach every time you get a bill
I thank Josh for his resolve.
I need the pain and stress otherwise what would I do.. I might wake up and feel like I've died if I felt something different

[springyzone]

I think it's a hard area because newstart is ideally supposed to be a short term allowance, enough for someone to survive on for a small period of time until they find another job.

As Frydenberg said, a lot of people receiving it also get other allowances.

However, what the government needs to look at more closely is that group of people who might be single or on their own, without children and in an older age group. My brother used to be one of those with some health issues and finding a full time job was almost impossible. He had to work 15 hours a week, I think it was. 

Things may have changed since he died, but I thought back then that newstart was not the right allowance for him (it should have been invalid pension for a year or so before his death, in my opinion).

For the third of people who are still on Newstart after 12 months, I'd be willing to bet quite a few are in the over 45 year old group and no matter how the government twists it, trying to find a job gets harder after that age. It's all very well & good to say they can get something not as physical or retrain etc but I don't think the government has enough in place to target that particular group and help them out.

Perhaps if they don't want to increase the allowance across the board, they should consider at least increasing it for single people over 45 who have been on Newstart for over 12 months. And having some better systems in place to help those people get into jobs.

[martinw-48]

If by survive you mean lose everything that you have worked for and then spend the rest of your life unable to ever get ahead because every time you get a job by the time you've worked your way out of debt your unemployed again because the job only existed in the first place because of the six months wage subsidy.
I've had three six month jobs since 2015 all only because of the wage subsidy and they have all ended the day the subsidy did.
They're not jobs.
They are busnisesses stealing tax payers money purely for greed

[martinw-48]

The 2015 job was the worst of all.
100% wage subsidy and then the cheeky basket said at the end of the six months that I'm welcome to stay and work for free then laughed at me.
I nearly ended up in gaol that day and still regret not doing something to him that he wouldn't have lived to regret

[davidc4430]

only after you have been required to live on newstart should you get to say if its a sensible payment to live on.

i know when i was on it my savings was dissapearing rapidly, how anyone actually 'lives' on newstart alone baffles me.

and, its time we stopped calling it money to tide us over until we find a job as we know there are thousands on it who will never get a job.

and no, they are not bludgers, just unemployables.

set up for a life of nothingness and possibly crime.

but allways a target for those wanting someone easy to blame for societies failures.

[zanadoo_56]

---

@martinw-48 wrote:
If by survive you mean lose everything that you have worked for and then spend the rest of your life unable to ever get ahead because every time you get a job by the time you've worked your way out of debt your unemployed again because the job only existed in the first place because of the six months wage subsidy.
I've had three six month jobs since 2015 all only because of the wage subsidy and they have all ended the day the subsidy did.
They're not jobs.
They are busnisesses stealing tax payers money purely for greed

---

I remember the govt announcement for an employing seniors scheme.  My mother (elderly and not looking for a job BTW) was very impressed.  I explained (or tried to) that the 'jobs' were for only 6 months and then the subsidy ended and the person was again unemployed.  She didn't believe me.  Apparently 'the government wouldn't do that'.  Ha!

[domino-710]

It can only be assumed ' the government ' thought - perhaps - after 6 months an ethical company would keep on an employee - who has done the job for 6 months - and continue paying them accordingly.

Therefore - I'm not sure it is all the fault of a government not fulfilling their ' obligation '.

[martinw-48]

The government is only partially responsible for this situation.
Greed is responsible for most of it.
When they first did the wage subsidy thing it was reliant on twelve months of employment for the six months of subsidy.
I never got any work because of a wage subsidy then but I think that was the reason and obviously it wasn't used much that's why it changed

[springyzone]

---

@davidc4430 wrote:

only after you have been required to live on newstart should you get to say if its a sensible payment to live on.

i know when i was on it my savings was dissapearing rapidly, how anyone actually 'lives' on newstart alone baffles me.

and, its time we stopped calling it money to tide us over until we find a job as we know there are thousands on it who will never get a job.

and no, they are not bludgers, just unemployables.

set up for a life of nothingness and possibly crime.

but allways a target for those wanting someone easy to blame for societies failures.

---

I never said all people on it were bludgers, I don't believe that. But I think most definitely it is classed as money to tide a person over between jobs. Frydenberg even said that-that 2/3 of those on it go on to full time work within the year.

I am very well aware that for some people, the likelihood of getting off it and into full time work is pretty small. I think if you're older, it is hard to get anyone to give you a chance. And for some people with health issues or a lack of skills, the chances of landing a job aren't great either.

As to whether it is a sensible payment to live on, you are never going to get 100% agreement about anything to do with welfare and saying anyone not on it should not have any input is not realistic.

The hard, cold fact is that if any welfare allowance got to too comfortable a level, the impetus to get a job would not be there for a few. The government has to strike a balance between being too generous or too harsh. It doesn't always get it right.

[myoclon1cjerk]

"Frydenberg even said that-that 2/3 of those on it go on to full time work within the year."

He was lying,again.