Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think our welfare system would be defined as comprehensive by most standards.
When you consider that more than 50% of Australians pay no net tax after transfer payments (welfare and middle class welfare like child care rebates, family tax benefit etc), we need more people actually contributing to the tax take not less.
No net income tax? Are GST, state government stamp duties etc factored into that?
No net income tax? Are GST, state government stamp duties etc factored into that?
Yes income tax. However when I last looked at the numbers a couple of years ago (you may recall an episode of Q&A was the catalyst for a broad discussion on this topic) the broader measure of no total net tax was still in the mid 40% range.
I'm an American, but if Australia is ANYTHING like America and Canada, (which I suspect it is for a lot of reasons) the idea of 41% public housing is repulsive. I almost spit out my coffee. I imagine a country founded by self-reliant people would want far less government in their lives. The idea of home ownership is a common "dream". Being in public housing is seen as failure, dangerous, and only one step above prison itself in many areas of US and Canada.
I've recently watched a lot of internet videos about the housing bubbles in these countries and totally understand why more public housing might be appealing to those struggling to keep up right now. (The solutions to that are beyond the scope of this discussion). But honestly, SO MUCH government would make even lots of liberals in these countries uncomfortable.
I'm an American, but if Australia is ANYTHING like America and Canada, (which I suspect it is for a lot of reasons) the idea of 41% public housing is repulsive. I almost spit out my coffee. I imagine a country founded by self-reliant people would want far less government in their lives. The idea of home ownership is a common "dream". Being in public housing is seen as failure, dangerous, and only one step above prison itself in many areas of US and Canada.
I've recently watched a lot of internet videos about the housing bubbles in these countries and totally understand why more public housing might be appealing to those struggling to keep up right now. (The solutions to that are beyond the scope of this discussion). But honestly, SO MUCH government would make even lots of liberals in these countries uncomfortable.
Not a question as to whether public housing is preferable, it clearly isn't, but more of affordability. People need a roof over their heads. Australia was a country, until recently, where most all if wanted, could afford to purchase a house of some kind.
Those days are passed with cheap money feeding into an asset boom that placed housing out of reach of ever more, even those on good salaries in our main cities especially.
Check out the prices in the inflated Australian housing market compared to those of USA's. It is insane here.
In a country with insane priced real estate, a poor pension system, debateable health care and pretty much stagnant wages, something needs to be done.
I'm an American, but if Australia is ANYTHING like America and Canada, (which I suspect it is for a lot of reasons) the idea of 41% public housing is repulsive. I almost spit out my coffee. I imagine a country founded by self-reliant people would want far less government in their lives. The idea of home ownership is a common "dream". Being in public housing is seen as failure, dangerous, and only one step above prison itself in many areas of US and Canada.
I've recently watched a lot of internet videos about the housing bubbles in these countries and totally understand why more public housing might be appealing to those struggling to keep up right now. (The solutions to that are beyond the scope of this discussion). But honestly, SO MUCH government would make even lots of liberals in these countries uncomfortable.
Ignoring the matter of climates, I'd choose living in a Scandinavian country in a heartbeat, over living in the USA.
Yes to above. Only can applaud the Australian population for rejecting taking us further down the American road, a few years back. All very well those preaching on the altar of self reliance, but policies directly implemented by government have indeed impacted negatively on the housing market, driving up prices to serious bubble territory, then clueless how to react to the consequences.
When such situations arise, meaning too much is spent on unproductive housing rather than things of value, self reliance goes increasingly out of the window.
When spending dries up, when folk are in insecure employment, lack long term rights of tenure, too many people are impacted for a normal economy to run as designed.
I'd put a bullet in the head of the Lee Kuan Yews of this world, if I could.
I've only got one father, and it isn't the government, or someone who thinks the world should be killed into a better place. Most people already follow the rules anyway, and those that don't, need help, not killing.
I think NZ made the right move in the 80s -the politics and economics of that era were inherently dishonest, and the status quo was only maintained via propaganda.
I think your point about media/government blaming welfare recipients, isn't an accurate one -people formulate opinions on such matters from experience, or from their own learning and ideological leanings - using progressive propaganda, interferes with that process.
You do have an understanding who Lee was? Just asking, as you mention killing in next phrase. We are not talking Pol Pot. Hence I think there is confusion on your part.
Rules? Well both Australia and Singapore are blinded by rules and regulations. There are similarities in that area. People tend to be compliant in both countries. Probably too compliant in fact.
NZ lowered living standards for many in the eighties. The cutting of welfare and low wages, did not achieve very much. Unless you think a great exodus to Australia an achievement.
One could argue New Zealand became more in line a second world country. Low wages, high prices, very expensive, but largely poorly constructed housing, hardly anything to crow about, unless of course a complete rusted on neo liberal and ideological outcome before practical.
AS for people, very easy to manipulate. Being fed the same message enough times will usually do the trick. Progressive thinkers are of course the enemy and disrupt the neo liberal message with at least making a section of the population think things needed be at they are and demand better, fairer and more humane policy which in turn will benefit most all.
You do have an understanding who Lee was? Just asking, as you mention killing in next phrase. We are not talking Pol Pot. Hence I think there is confusion on your part.
Rules? Well both Australia and Singapore are blinded by rules and regulations. There are similarities in that area. People tend to be compliant in both countries. Probably too compliant in fact.
NZ lowered living standards for many in the eighties. The cutting of welfare and low wages, did not achieve very much. Unless you think a great exodus to Australia an achievement.
One could argue New Zealand became more in line a second world country. Low wages, high prices, very expensive, but largely poorly constructed housing, hardly anything to crow about, unless of course a complete rusted on neo liberal and ideological outcome before practical.
AS for people, very easy to manipulate. Being fed the same message enough times will usually do the trick. Progressive thinkers are of course the enemy and disrupt the neo liberal message with at least making a section of the population think things needed be at they are and demand better, fairer and more humane policy which in turn will benefit most all.
You think that we are all like you? - seeking the smothering embrace of "daddy state" and happily supporting leaders who would kill and whip their way to their better world. Well, we're not -he represents much of what I think is wrong with the world.
Poorly constructed housing isn't an accurate portrayal of the issues of the last 30 years. Houses built prior to about the late 80s, had design issues that largely effected those with poor house keeping skills. Leaky house was a continuation of a similar crisis that played out in the US and Canada, and could be broadly described as a too rapid embrace of new design and materials, in a de- regulated market -tended to affect more upmarket houses and apartments, as isn't seen as an issue of poverty.
The housing market is a bit lopsided, but I see that deliberately maintaining a low house price, so as to be affordable for the poorest, isn't the best for the economy, or the country.
One could argue that NZ has struggled to gain ground in the last 30 years, but I've become more inclined to think that that is a much about geography as anything -however well a product or service is developed here, there's always going to be somewhere better to conduct the business. I think I prefer the grass roots economy myself, and NZ s becoming a nation of investors.
I'm am actually in favour of the welfare state, but primarily through education, assistance and intervention. Welfare for work capable should always be a step down from the lowest level of worker.
I think the private sector can crow all it wants about ideology, but government should not be using it's resources to promote ideology.
While there are certainly cultural similarities between Europe and Aust/NZ one cannot underestimate the impact of history on housing. Europe industrialized and urbanized much earlier than Aust/NZ and the rush to the cities in the 19th and 20th centuries for industrial jobs required large scale housing that was both affordable and accessible to work where even public transit was a limited option and cars certainly weren`t. This backed up by far larger family sizes meant mass housing was needed. Unlike new countries of Aust/NZ however the land where the housing was needed was already owned by a still large land owning aristocracy so the government, particularly local, stepped in to build housing for the working masses. This is particularly true of the UK.
On the Continent itself, where industrialization and urbanization generally came later than the UK, much of the large scale government built/supported housing came after WW11 and that was very much due to the war itself. Whole cities were wiped off the map, millions of refugees were escaping Eastern Europe and the Soviet rule, and there was mass unemployment so huge amounts of housing had to be built by the governments on the cheap for a newly impoverished Europe.
In Europe and the UK, although for different reasons, many decades ago needed mass housing for the masses, it had to be built quick, in high density pedestrian/transit friendly ways, on limited and expensive land, and had to be geared towards the huge working class and not just the poor as a social scheme. The latter point is also very significant as to why, even today, government housing doesn't have the negative stigma in Europe as it does in Aust/NZ/Can and FAR less so than it does in the US.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
