---

@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.