Having to rely on a benefit is not the first choice for many of us!!! Who in their right mind would throw away a job of $35,000 PA to exist on less than $11,000 pa. Beneficiaries DO actually contribute to the tax take, & due to the minute size of their income spend it all weekly and therefore contribute. GST, ETS and all the other taxes the govt throw at us. We are not supposed to own a private motor vehicle, but rely on the goodness of others to help. Govt again taking advantage of the volunteers in our community. UP NATIONAL, they need to get a real job or even life.

There is a parallel between the claims made about benefits and the minimum wage. Those who say that people are only on the minimum wage for a short time, so it does not need to be increased, also say the same about the benefit levels. The same people who say of the hundreds of thousands on around $15 an hour or below (half the median income) are only there a short time, then say that we have a beneficiary problem because of the number on benefits. Yet, in fact, the turnover on benefits is actually higher. I suppose no committed ideologist lets the facts get in the way of a radical reform.

There is a parallel between the claims made about benefits and the minimum wage. Those who say that people are only on the minimum wage for a short time, so it does not need to be increased, also say the same about the benefit levels. The same people who say of the hundreds of thousands on around $15 an hour or below (half the median income) are only there a short time, then say that we have a beneficiary problem because of the number on benefits. Yet, in fact, the turnover on benefits is actually higher. I suppose no committed ideologist lets the facts get in the way of a radical reform.

Those advocating reform based on the numbers on benefits, relative to the size of the working population, have to consider the principle of consistency in the matter of Super cost. Particularly when the increasing numbers on IB and SB are related to ageing of the population. They should also note that we are not alone in facing the demographic pressures involved. It is not honest to single out beneficiaries as a wedge for a radical reform to prepare the way for the (for now untouchable) Super issue later.

We all know how the numbers on benefits can be reduced: it’s by creating jobs and making available opportunities for people to train. We recently had fewer than 30,000 on the UB and the numbers on the DPB were falling as well. If growth were not checked by the RB response to the housing bubble we would have progressed further.

Getting mean is not a policy it's an expression of an attitude towards an underclass. So some want to use impersonal market forces (term limits etc) to wash our hands of these people and let private investors build more prisons ... . Why did we contend against one foreign anti-human ideology during the Cold War to succumb to another afterward?

Oh great, another lecture about welfare bludging by a self-righteous prick who hasn't got a clue what it's like to find work while on welfare and yet another working group set up by the government made up of bosses, senior bureaucrats and others who are clueless about the problem who'll produce yet another doorstop that will simply say "Kick the bludgers harder". ENOUGH ALREADY!