I find it obscene that 85 people own almost half of the worlds wealth.

[margomeoz]

No wonder I like the idea of socialism that is disgusting, especially when Abbott is now going to see what he can pry from aged pensioners.

The other 50% of people deserve a share in this wealth they helped earn it for the 85 people.

[freakiness]

---

@margomeoz wrote:

I am one of that group and I never received a halfpenny, maybe they forgot to tell me I could.

---

no child endowment?

[the_hawk*]

---

@freakiness wrote:

---

@margomeoz wrote:

I am one of that group and I never received a halfpenny, maybe they forgot to tell me I could.

---

no child endowment?

---

I thing you need to find out how much that was, from my memory if you saved several months you could buy a cheap pair of shoes at the time.

[the_hawk*]

---

@***super_nova*** wrote:

---

@the_hawk* wrote:

---

Now for five years of wages you can buy far more  

---

Whose wages and in what area?

In this article it says that ratio of over 5 means 'unaffordable", in Australia the ratio is between 7.5 and 9 in capital cities.

http://economics.hia.com.au/media/House%20price%20to%20income%20ratio%20-%20FINAL.pdf

---

I am talking Adelaide then and now for a Tradies wage

You can buy a house a lot bigger now for $300 - $500K than we managed to get for 5 years of wages

[tall_bearded]

To attempt to match child endowment against what is available now is a joke.

 Not only were sum received significantly less than what you now receive as family benefits, but then lets add in subsidised child care, paid maternity leave and baby bonus just to name just three.

[***super_nova***]

When my daughter was born child endowment was something like 50c a week and payable every few months. I think. 

[freakiness]

---

@tall_bearded wrote:

To attempt to match child endowment against what is available now is a joke.

 Not only were sum received significantly less than what you now receive as family benefits, but then lets add in subsidised child care, paid maternity leave and baby bonus just to name just three.

---

I didn't attempt to match the two. I was merely pointing out that there was support paid in the "good old days"

Wages were a lot lower then as was the cost of living.

[the_hawk*]

---

@tall_bearded wrote:

The only payments we ever received was a small amount for Child endowment.

Furthermore to put the issue into perspective, my wife was a single mother in the 1970.  Was married but the husband did a runner.  Her options were, support the kids or we’ll take them away.  To support her children she held down two jobs, with child care being provided by her mother, who also made and mended most of the children’s cloths.  That is no single mum benefits.  Instead to keep them she had to provide for them or lose them, and at the same time pay income tax  on what she earnt. 

Then when we married in the late 80, we bought our first home and then had a child but were not entitled to any benefits.  Then when interest rates went to 17%+ our only hope of keeping the family home was for her to go back to work 6 weeks after the birth.  As for her salary after tax and child care payments, we were made $50 which was enough (just) to keep a roof over our head.

---

I did the sums back then and they just didnt work well after paying all the associated costs, what we opted for was my OH looked after the neighbors kids after school and holidays and then worked Sundays, we were better of money wise but stuffed our weekends up big time, but it was what had to be done to get ahead

[the_hawk*]

1976

From June Family Allowance (FA) replaced CE. Under the scheme the rates were $3.50 per week for the first child, $5.00 per week for the second, $6.00 per week for each of the third and fourth children, and $7.00 per week for each additional child. FA was not subject to any income or assets test, nor was it taxable. The age at which FA ceased to be payable for dependent students was increased from 21 to 25 years. http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/0809/...

[tall_bearded]

Wages were a lot lower then as was the cost of living”.

Not when it came to the essentials.

Cloths were of better quality but very much more expensive.  For instance my first pair of safety shoes cost me half a weeks’ pay.

Meat was cheaper but fruit and veg was expensive, which is why every backyard had its own vegy patch and most had a chook run.

Cars cost more, as did spares and they needed to be serviced and repaired more often but they retained their wvalue longer

Electrical goods also were very expensive with most major items (radios VCR and Televisions) each costing more than the then weekly wage.

As for houses, they were cheaper but, before you could buy one you had to have 25% deposit in the bank and interest rates, if memory serves were regulated at about 12%

[freakiness]

---

@tall_bearded wrote:

Wages were a lot lower then as was the cost of living”.

Not when it came to the essentials.

Cloths were of better quality but very much more expensive.  For instance my first pair of safety shoes cost me half a weeks’ pay.

Meat was cheaper but fruit and veg was expensive, which is why every backyard had its own vegy patch and most had a chook run.

Cars cost more, as did spares and they needed to be serviced and repaired more often but they retained their wvalue longer

Electrical goods also were very expensive with most major items (radios VCR and Televisions) each costing more than the then weekly wage.

As for houses, they were cheaper but, before you could buy one you had to have 25% deposit in the bank and interest rates, if memory serves were regulated at about 12%

---

Yep, true.