The opposition says it will attempt to amend the government's measure to raise the Jobseeker rate by $40, and instead lift the threshold before benefits begin to be reduced, saying it would encourage more people into work.
  • Gbagginsthe3rd@aussie.zoneEnglish
    26·
    1 year ago

    Fuck those poor people… until whoops too many average Australians required covid benefits and everyone realised the amounts offered were not sustainable for living…

    We forgot about that so back to demonising the poor.

    How about instead we properly tax the super profits of big business. Then there is lots of money for the projects and people that enrich our society and lives

  • TheBananaKing@lemmy.world
    25·
    1 year ago

    If a 3-5% unemployment is a deliberate policy goal, and the economy will constantly be adjusted to achieve it, then the entire concept of ‘incentive’ is a blatant fucking lie.

    If you’re going to deliberately and knowingly condemn a hundred thousand people to unemployment and god knows how many more to underemployment - and that’s not counting dependent family, etc - then you don’t get to stand there and blame them for being your fucking victims.

    They aren’t there for some moral failing on their part. They aren’t there because there’s just not enough to go round. They aren’t there because they’re lazy and feckless.

    They’re there because you wanted to ensure a ready supply of scab labour to step in any time the lowest-rung peasants above them dares to ask for a payrise.

    Not that that isn’t fucking evil bastardry in and of itself, because of course it is. But to then turn around and leave them starving on the fucking streets and glibly moralise about how they should just want it more…

    I’m thinking a whole bunch of things I am not allowed to say here.

    • Railison@aussie.zoneEnglish
      8·
      1 year ago

      I wish Lemmy had awards, sort of like awards that replenish after a while. I’d award this rant it is beautiful.

  • Mountaineer@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
    24·
    1 year ago

    I’m a big fan of both raising the payment floor and the cutoff ceiling.
    People claiming benefits shouldn’t be going hungry if they can’t find work AND we want to not discourage people who are currently claiming benefits from getting work.
    Whether that be through simply raising the ceiling at which point the benefits are reduced, or perhaps having some sort of “earnings bank” where earning too much in a single fortnight doesn’t effect your payments until it happens several fortnights in a row, or some other clever mechanism.

    • iKill101@lemmy.bleh.auEnglish
      10·
      1 year ago

      perhaps having some sort of “earnings bank”

      There already is this feature in place for CLink recipients. It’s called “Working Credits”. But, you can only earn 48 “credits” (being dollars) per fortnight, up to a maximum bank of 1000 on JobSeeker. Source

      Their example of how it works:

      Janine is single, has no children and doesn’t earn an income. Over time, Janine has built up 1,000 Working Credits as part of her JobSeeker payments.

      Janine starts a full time job earning $1,600 per fortnight. In the first fortnight the 1,000 Working Credits reduce the amount we count as income from $1,600 to $600. This means Janine gets some JobSeeker Payment that fortnight. Janine’s Working Credit balance is zero.

      The next fortnight all of Janine’s income will count. This reduces Janine’s JobSeeker Payment to zero.

      My partner went through this recently. She got a casual job (which is great), and used up all of her working credit for the fortnight. I think the amount you can “bank” is a bit too small IMO. Along with the amount you can earn before you’re cut off completely. With Cost of Living going through the roof, she’s finding that she has to cut back on food and other essentials because rent is getting ridiculous, shopping for food is getting ridiculous and yeah. Plus the risk of it being casual work, there’s no guarantee of shifts.

      ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

      • Mountaineer@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
        15·
        1 year ago

        I remember having to do the maths once upon a time, and decide that I didn’t want a shift in my part time job, even though I could use the money, because it would effect my payments.
        I had to reach an agreement with my employer where they promised to offer me at least X hours a fortnight (I can’t remember what it was, and there was no guarantee, just a verbal promise), because there was a point at which I was not only losing the centrelink payment, but I’d lose the rent assistance, and health care card and all the other things, necessitating my reapplying for everything.
        To someone on that knife edge of paying rent and eating, with electricity for heating… That was a bit too dangerous to play with.

        • iKill101@lemmy.bleh.auEnglish
          8·
          1 year ago

          Yeah it’s an absolutely shitty predicament to be placed in.

          My partner was lucky in the sense that she’s been given basically guaranteed shifts… but she’s off crook with the flu, which she caught from one of her clients. Which means she’s going to be up shit creek this fortnight money wise.

  • LineNoise@kbin.social
    12·
    1 year ago

    Hopefully the crossbench has another shot at forcing this government to lift welfare rates above the poverty line.