As it's more than 100 days now, it has been suggested that a new thread was needed. The current govt has been breaking promises and telling lies at a rate so fast it's hard to keep up.
This below is worrying, "independent" pffft, as if your own doctor is somehow what? biased, it's ridiculous. So far there is talk of only including people under a certain age 30-35, for now. Remember that if your injured in a car, injured at work or get ill, you too might need to go on the DSP. They have done a similar think in the UK with devastating consequences.
and this is the 2nd time recently where the Govt has referred to work as welfare???? So when you go to work tomorrow (or tuesday), just remember that's welfare.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-20/disability-pensioners-may-be-reassessed-kevin-andrews/5400598
Independent doctors could be called in to reassess disability pensioners, Federal Government says
The Federal Government is considering using independent doctors to examine disability pensioners and assess whether they should continue to receive payments.
Currently family doctors provide reports supporting claims for the Disability Support Pension (DSP).
But Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews is considering a measure that would see independent doctors reassess eligibility.
"We are concerned that where people can work, the best form of welfare is work," Mr Andrews said at a press conference.
"Yes, I must have overlooked it. Truth be told, I don't read many of your posts, Monman because I find your posting format difficult to read, and on the rare occassions I persist, I find the contents not worth my effort."
"Overlooking" here is not unexpected, even "definitive's" that upon a cursory examination can often be shown to be less than reliable, having "overlooked" research ! In fact for myself, and the gang's posts, I exist in a permanent state of caveat lector !
"........on the rare occassions I persist, I find the contents not worth my effort." "not worth" ?. But you did/do expend some effort !
Gosh, that which we call a oxymoron. By signaanter stultum would sound as sweet..
All that aside, with regard to "difficult" posts, and definitive comments, I do get a chuckle out of some explanations:
"minor error on my part"
" it was a test to see if you and others picked it up."
here is a bit more on that earlier story
What do you think of yet another's story? Did you notice this part at the end of the article ?:
"The hostile response was clearly directed at Mr Turnbull's dramatic ouster of Mr Abbott last month.
Mr Turnbull earlier sought to head off the hostility by heaping praise on his predecessor's record. But that clearly wasn't enough the satisfy the Abbott loyalists in the room."
"Mr Turnbull's dramatic ouster of Mr Abbott" ?? Actually by a party room majority vote
" the Abbott loyalists in the room" Those would be the troglodytes in the corner, which I would hope you are not identifying with (default setting?).
Just another yummy URL?
"interesting article from the Financial review"
Why exactly is this article from Jacob Greber so interesting ?
perhaps this part> :
That caution has since been borne out, with a chart published this week by the Reserve Bank showing household debt-to-GDP is around 180 per cent – a staggering level.
I find these figures below (sourced elsewhere) particularly shocking in that people still do not plan ahead:
In 2013, analysis by Credit Suisse revealed that the official ratio included superannuation contributions and extra principal repayments, which arguably should not be counted as disposable savings. After controlling for these two artefacts, the ratio falls significantly, exhibiting a persistently negative trend since 1997.
The household sector’s savings situation is dire, as reported by ME Bank in a 2014 report:
- Only 46 per cent of households reported the ability to save each month;
- Only 32 per cent would easily be able to raise $3,000 in an emergency;
- 50 per cent aren’t confident they have enough savings to last if unemployed for three months;
- 35 per cent reported having less than $1,000 cash on hand;
- 17 per cent have less than $100 in savings;
- 60 per cent have less than $10,000 in savings; and
- In 2009, Australians were saving a median $300 per year (AMP/NATSEM).
Australia’s private sector is grossly over-indebted, especially the household sector. The hysteria surrounding Australia’s non-existent public budget ‘emergency’ is a smokescreen cloaking the critical household budget crisis. The fictional narrative concerning public debt arises from an unshakeable adherence to pseudo-scientific economic theory and class war, such as ‘justified’ public austerity policies which target the poor and marginalised.
Meanwhile, the public is distracted from the true threat: the unrestrained private spending spree that further enhance the power, profit and authority of the horde of private monopolists, usurers, speculators, rent seekers, free riders, financial robber barons, control frauds and indolent rich..
Interest rates will inevitably rise, what will happen then to the current spate of "thoughtless" borrowers?
As the Business Insider's Greg McKenna wrote a while ago, and it still rings true:
"......the RBA policy is implicitly borrowing growth from the future to plug a hole in the present. But in doing so the Australian economy is becoming dangerously overburdened with household debt...."
Interesting introduction/airing of "They don't save because they can't, not because of 'poor planning'" because it is nonsense.
During the resources boom period when money was "freely" available, it was spent , with little thought of the future or saving for it.!
Trading Economics
Households Savings correspond to the ratio of household income saved to household net disposable income.
After the GFC there was the realisation that having some reseves might just be advisable.
As for "due to the high cost of housing" have you wondered why?
Let's hope APRA pulls out the fire hose soon. One in three home buyers at present is an investor. Lending to investors has risen more than 10 per cent in the past year - a level that should now be attracting the attention of the regulators.
"they don't save because they can't" is mainly codswallop. Why do you think the compulsory "Superannuation Guarantee" was introduced in 1992 by the Keating government with one of its "three pillars" being:
"Private savings generated through compulsory contributions to superannuation" ?
It was because: "they" wont save !
Interesting introduction/airing of "They don't save because they can't, not because of 'poor planning'" because it is nonsense.
During the resources boom period when money was "freely" available, it was spent , with little thought of the future or saving for it.!
property boom chart
'codswallop"
