U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Australia and New Zealand
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-04-2019, 07:04 AM
 
Location: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
113 posts, read 93,128 times
Reputation: 161

Advertisements

I mean the nordic countries, France, Germany, the Netherlands, etc all have better and more comprehensive welfare systems than the 2 countries down under and in the pacific do, why is that, would it be better if we did??

example:

France has 41% of all housing stock is public housing while in Australia its only 5%, shouldn't there be more of that stuff in Australia???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-04-2019, 02:51 PM
 
Location: Australia
494 posts, read 171,246 times
Reputation: 959
It was explained to me once by a friend who had an export business that although many of our work conditions are similar to European ones, that our trading partners are mostly Asian, which have poorer conditions and less welfare. We cannot compete economically if our exports are too expensive.

But whether or not that is correct, to have welfare systems like that you require a very high tax rate but also compliance to a high tax rate. It does not work if there is a lot of tax avoidance. As we have had long periods of Liberal governments, the push has been to lower tax rates, not increase them.

Many people also would believe that we have more than enough welfare as it is. Although they are not particularly high, most countries do not have non-contributory welfare as we do, eg Aged pensions and so on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2019, 03:53 PM
 
Location: Top of the South, NZ
16,429 posts, read 12,839,275 times
Reputation: 5205
Most people here wouldn't accept it , in my opinion - welfare here is regarded as a safety net, not a safety cushion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2019, 05:56 PM
 
2,208 posts, read 3,037,318 times
Reputation: 1315
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarisaMay View Post
It was explained to me once by a friend who had an export business that although many of our work conditions are similar to European ones, that our trading partners are mostly Asian, which have poorer conditions and less welfare. We cannot compete economically if our exports are too expensive.

But whether or not that is correct, to have welfare systems like that you require a very high tax rate but also compliance to a high tax rate. It does not work if there is a lot of tax avoidance. As we have had long periods of Liberal governments, the push has been to lower tax rates, not increase them.

Many people also would believe that we have more than enough welfare as it is. Although they are not particularly high, most countries do not have non-contributory welfare as we do, eg Aged pensions and so on.

It (Australia) was referred to as the 'iron rice bowel' in conservative Asian thinking of some decades back. Don't recall know, but could have been an expression coined by Lieu Kuan Yew, the long serving Singaporean former leader (also referred to Australia as in danger of becoming 'The poor white thrash of Asia)


Obviously business will do all in its power to keep costs down. We will never compete on wages regardless, but no your friend was incorrect. Singapore, for example has long had a paternal policy towards its citizens. Housing, a prime example has long been subsidised with far more living in such conditions than Australia.


Our major problem is too many eggs in the China basket. We are principally a western country with institutions based on the UK system which has seen a declining social system after years of conservative rule going back to the Thatcher era that witnessed a shake up of the welfare state. We followed suit, now having an unemployment payment (dole) that is below ability to live (even Chamber of Commerce has called for rises)


Of course corporates no longer pay to amount of tax once paid, with many paying nothing thanks to creative accounting, where is the reason you will find the difficulty in paying a welfare system like for example Norway pays its citizens.


There is a limit to what can be expected in taxation by pay as you go workers. Another reason inequality has been on the rise in Australia.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2019, 07:58 PM
 
Location: Top of the South, NZ
16,429 posts, read 12,839,275 times
Reputation: 5205
Quote:
Originally Posted by the troubadour View Post
It (Australia)
Obviously business will do all in its power to keep costs down. We will never compete on wages regardless, but no your friend was incorrect. Singapore, for example has long had a paternal policy towards its citizens. Housing, a prime example has long been subsidised with far more living in such conditions than Australia.
Good parents don't kill their kids for dealing in drugs - last thing I want, is a paternal government.

Getting citizenry to agree to generous enough welfare, that blurs the distinction between those who work and those who don't, is more the result of indoctrination/propaganda imo. The degree of my welfare in my country is more a reflection on the idealogical divide of voters, and a rough balance achieved by the voting system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2019, 10:19 PM
 
2,208 posts, read 3,037,318 times
Reputation: 1315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe90 View Post
Good parents don't kill their kids for dealing in drugs - last thing I want, is a paternal government.

Getting citizenry to agree to generous enough welfare, that blurs the distinction between those who work and those who don't, is more the result of indoctrination/propaganda imo. The degree of my welfare in my country is more a reflection on the idealogical divide of voters, and a rough balance achieved by the voting system.
Regardless, Singapore followed a system where Father knew best. A system, I hasten to add, received and continues to receive wide spread support in countries like Australia, for their lack of crime, cleanliness, public transport, and dare I say their policy on law and order and corporal punishment meets approval of the many conservatives within our society.


Well hard for citizenry to formulate a 'balanced' view on welfare, when media and government increasingly look to blame those with the least ability to defend themselves, with propaganda and indoctrination.


Most people if experienced the Scandinavian system would likely prefer that and the economy would do better, imo as well. Taxes may well be higher, but the concern around aged care, illness, disability, unemployment, housing would all be of less concern, allowing people to spend freer .


New Zealand was a classic example of a country going backwards, in that regard, with policy introduced in the eighties.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2019, 10:36 PM
 
922 posts, read 569,867 times
Reputation: 537
Quote:
Originally Posted by the troubadour View Post


Our major problem is too many eggs in the China basket. We are principally a western country with institutions based on the UK system which has seen a declining social system after years of conservative rule going back to the Thatcher era that witnessed a shake up of the welfare state. We followed suit, now having an unemployment payment (dole) that is below ability to live (even Chamber of Commerce has called for rises)
But Australia never had a UK style NHS or even public housing on the scale or prevalence seen in the UK or Europe more generally. Even our education systems evolved out of what were primarily church run institutions that were largely "handed over" to state governments, with a few major exceptions that remain significant non-government providers to this day.

If you want to have large scale government welfare systems, you need to tax accordingly. And doing so renders large parts of the community dependent on those very systems. I guess Australians have generally preferred economic independence over relying on the state to provide for them. Perhaps is also a result of development and population patterns - governments were historically always "catching up" with population growth.

Last edited by Bakery Hill; 01-04-2019 at 11:11 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2019, 10:55 PM
 
Location: Top of the South, NZ
16,429 posts, read 12,839,275 times
Reputation: 5205
Quote:
Originally Posted by the troubadour View Post
Regardless, Singapore followed a system where Father knew best. A system, I hasten to add, received and continues to receive wide spread support in countries like Australia, for their lack of crime, cleanliness, public transport, and dare I say their policy on law and order and corporal punishment meets approval of the many conservatives within our society.


Well hard for citizenry to formulate a 'balanced' view on welfare, when media and government increasingly look to blame those with the least ability to defend themselves, with propaganda and indoctrination.


Most people if experienced the Scandinavian system would likely prefer that and the economy would do better, imo as well. Taxes may well be higher, but the concern around aged care, illness, disability, unemployment, housing would all be of less concern, allowing people to spend freer .


New Zealand was a classic example of a country going backwards, in that regard, with policy introduced in the eighties.
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2019, 11:09 PM
 
Location: Wellington and North of South
4,999 posts, read 6,375,438 times
Reputation: 2389
There's no real doubt that the wealth gap in NZ has increased significantly since the 70s and 80s. I can't at present see an indication that the average voter wants to change this. I do think that notwithstanding all the sham and hypocrisy the society of the 60s and 70s was more caring than it is now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2019, 12:24 AM
 
433 posts, read 253,732 times
Reputation: 511
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Australia and New Zealand
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top