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.

[donnashuggy]

Ha ha spot, trying to tell the young people of today something 🙂

[polksaladallie]

---

@tall_bearded wrote:

Yes, she may have been entitled to a widow’s pension but to equate that to a single mum now beggars belief.

Widow pension vs what they get now.  No lets see, no childcare subsidy, no rental assistance plus, baby  no baby bonus etc  You do the math.

At the time her option were a widow’s pension or go out and earn.

 If on a widow’s pension you were well below the poverty line.  So you were always reliant on charities, family and friends to get by particularly when you consider that essentials (food, clothing, shelter etc.) cost a lot more than they do today. That is way Legacy was created.  That is at the time war orphans were considered more entitled than those who were orphaned because dad was still living but decide to leave. Now add into the equation, if they decided to work wage equality; females got paid less than men and you may and you get some understanding from where I am coming from.  Oh and just for the record I have nothing but absolute and unequivocal respect and admiration for the work that Legacy have and continue to do.  I only used it to highlight community attitudes of the day. 

Also there was no family court to which to they could go to get hubby to pay his fair share.  That is the amount paid as a pension took into account what dad was supposed to pay support, and the fact that there was no way that the mum could force them to do so was considered irrelevant.

Therefore by any measure, what you get now is far in excess to what was available in the past, which brings me back to the intension of my original post, why should these people who have contributed so much, now be expected to accept less, so those who have yet to contribute can take more.

---

I did the math, I was there, ten years before, up to and including the 70s, and I dispute what you say.  The pension was equivalent to today's. A woman could go to work, and as it is today, she could earn a certain amount before the pension was affected. It was possible to live without going to work. There was a court process to receive maintenance. The maintenance paid did not affect the widow's pension.  Wages could be garnisheed.

I am well aware that it was difficult, but to distort things is no help to a discussion.

[catsnknots]

Back to Margo's OP... yes I do think it is obscene that 85 people own almost half the worlds wealth. 

We could go into this in more detail but I would be labeled a conspirator. 

all I can say is find me a single old Rothschild that wants to get married. 

[tall_bearded]

Yes I know it’s a lost cause.

When I grew up in the then outer western suburb of Sydney (Canley Heights) the essential were food, clothing, education and housing, and if anything was left over you saved it to buy something else such as a TV, which then cost more than you earned in a month.  I can still remember the days when people went out to Canley Vale Road and sat in front of the local TV store to watch TV because they couldn’t afford to buy one.  So much for the good old days.

Today, what forms that which is considered  essential includes TV, DVD players, surround sound system, mobile phones, a house with all the bells and whistles, and a gaming computes to name but a few, with the expectation being , if I don’t earn enough to pay for them, I’m entitled to some form of social security payment so I can.

[polksaladallie]

---

@catsnknots wrote:

Back to Margo's OP... yes I do think it is obscene that 85 people own almost half the worlds wealth. 

We could go into this in more detail but I would be labeled a conspirator. 

all I can say is find me a single old Rothschild that wants to get married. 

---

With a bad cough.

[the_hawk*]

---

@tall_bearded wrote:

Yes I know it’s a lost cause.

When I grew up in the then outer western suburb of Sydney (Canley Heights) the essential were food, clothing, education and housing, and if anything was left over you saved it to buy something else such as a TV, which then cost more than you earned in a month.  I can still remember the days when people went out to Canley Vale Road and sat in front of the local TV store to watch TV because they couldn’t afford to buy one.  So much for the good old days.

Today, what forms that which is considered  essential includes TV, DVD players, surround sound system, mobile phones, a house with all the bells and whistles, and a gaming computes to name but a few, with the expectation being , if I don’t earn enough to pay for them, I’m entitled to some form of social security payment so I can.

---

sadly I feel you are hitting your head on the wall and what you are saying is going over their head.

[tall_bearded]

Did your math include living cost expenses at the time?  That is a pair of shoes cost about as much as the average weekly wage whereas today you can buy a pair for a few dollars at any discount outlet.

Did you include in your assessment the cost of housing in the absence of rent relief?

Did you include in your assessment the cost the medical insurance because before the mid 70’s there was no Medicare?

No I think not.

[margomeoz]

50 cents a week no wonder I can't remember it.

Actually I think I thought it such a joke I let my ex husband claim it.

[tall_bearded]

I Know but since I retired I've nothing better to do when the high tides below 2.5 meters.

[the_hawk*]

---

@polksaladallie wrote:

---

@tall_bearded wrote:

Yes, she may have been entitled to a widow’s pension but to equate that to a single mum now beggars belief.

Widow pension vs what they get now.  No lets see, no childcare subsidy, no rental assistance plus, baby  no baby bonus etc  You do the math.

At the time her option were a widow’s pension or go out and earn.

 If on a widow’s pension you were well below the poverty line.  So you were always reliant on charities, family and friends to get by particularly when you consider that essentials (food, clothing, shelter etc.) cost a lot more than they do today. That is way Legacy was created.  That is at the time war orphans were considered more entitled than those who were orphaned because dad was still living but decide to leave. Now add into the equation, if they decided to work wage equality; females got paid less than men and you may and you get some understanding from where I am coming from.  Oh and just for the record I have nothing but absolute and unequivocal respect and admiration for the work that Legacy have and continue to do.  I only used it to highlight community attitudes of the day. 

Also there was no family court to which to they could go to get hubby to pay his fair share.  That is the amount paid as a pension took into account what dad was supposed to pay support, and the fact that there was no way that the mum could force them to do so was considered irrelevant.

Therefore by any measure, what you get now is far in excess to what was available in the past, which brings me back to the intension of my original post, why should these people who have contributed so much, now be expected to accept less, so those who have yet to contribute can take more.

---

I did the math, I was there, ten years before, up to and including the 70s, and I dispute what you say.  The pension was equivalent to today's. A woman could go to work, and as it is today, she could earn a certain amount before the pension was affected. It was possible to live without going to work. There was a court process to receive maintenance. The maintenance paid did not affect the widow's pension.  Wages could be garnisheed.

I am well aware that it was difficult, but to distort things is no help to a discussion.

---

That only works if the farther could be found and worked in a legit job, it was easy to disapear back then,

and I dont believe there was a deserted wifes pension till 1973 only a widows pension that didnt cover abanded wifes

  In 1973 supporting mother's benefit was introduced for single mothers not entitled to widow's pension. The new benefit was payable after a six-month waiting period, during which time the States remained responsible for the single mother's income support under the Commonwealth-State cost-sharing arrangements introduced in 1968. The supporting mother's benefit was extended in 1977 to single fathers, including widowers and divorcees, and renamed supporting parent's benefit. The six-month waiting period for this benefit was abolished in 1980 when the States withdrew from the Commonwealth-State cost-sharing arrangements. The six-month waiting period still applying to certain categories of widow's pension was also abolished in 1980.

 http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/8e72c4526a94aaedca2569de002...