Do the "Wefare Rich" really get this much?

[Tamara (Homes Down Under)]

I was surprised by these figures released by Joe Hockey.

My OH works part time and he would be financially better off not working.

 

Are our welfare payments too generous and a disincentive to work?

Any thoughts?

 

Joe blasts ‘welfare rich’ who have more money to spend than workers

 

• SAMANTHA MAIDEN NATIONAL POLITICAL EDITOR
  
• THE SUNDAY TELEGRAPH
  
• MAY 16, 2015 11:30PM
  

 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

• 
  ‘More money than workers’: Federal Treasurer Joe Hockey,
   
   
  TAXPAYERS have a right to know how much welfare they are really paying for, Treasurer Joe Hockey said.
  In an exclusive interview with The Sunday Telegraph, Mr Hockey said he had insisted that the federal Budget papers reveal the true disparity in disposable income between people who worked full-time and those who received welfare.The figures show that singles earning $80,000 a year have less disposable income than a single parent with two kids earning $30,000 when welfare is factored in.And a double-income family earning $100,000 is in some cases paying no net tax when childcare assistance and middle class welfare are offset against income tax.Mr Hockey has demanded that the Budget papers reveal for the first time the disposable ­income, tax contribution and welfare bill for households to help voters understand where their tax is going.
  The figures show a ­single parent with two children under six who earns $30,000 a year can generate a disposable income of around $66,000 when welfare is factored in.By comparison, a full-time worker without kids would need to earn around $90,000 a year to generate a similar ­disposable income.[TABLE=class: tg, width: 650]
  [TR]
  [TH=class: tg-yrsx, bgcolor: #3166FF][/TH]
  [TH=class: tg-yrsx, bgcolor: #3166FF]Private income[/TH]
  [TH=class: tg-yrsx, bgcolor: #3166FF]Government assistance[/TH]
  [TH=class: tg-yrsx, bgcolor: #3166FF]Income tax[/TH]
  [TH=class: tg-yrsx, bgcolor: #3166FF]Disposable income[/TH]
  [/TR]
  [TR]
  [TD=class: tg-031e]Sole parent with 2 kids under 6[/TD]
  [TD=class: tg-031e]$30,000[/TD]
  [TD=class: tg-031e]$38,838[/TD]
  [TD=class: tg-031e]$2,534[/TD]
  [TD=class: tg-031e]$66,304[/TD]
  [/TR]
  [TR]
  [TD=class: tg-031e]Pensioner couple with $400,000 non-home assets[/TD]
  [TD=class: tg-031e]$11,791[/TD]
  [TD=class: tg-031e]$29,864[/TD]
  [TD=class: tg-031e]$0[/TD]
  [TD=class: tg-031e]$41,6555[/TD]
  [/TR]
  [TR]
  [TD=class: tg-031e]Single person working 5 days a week[/TD]
  [TD=class: tg-031e]$80,000[/TD]
  [TD=class: tg-031e]$0[/TD]
  [TD=class: tg-031e]$19,147[/TD]
  [TD=class: tg-031e]$60,853[/TD]
  [/TR]
  [/TABLE]
  

“People need to know where their taxpayer money is going. This gives them the chance to see”

The figures also reveal that pensioners can have assets worth $400,000, not including the family home, and still claim $30,000 a year in welfare.A full-time worker earning an average salary of $79,454 would need to work for nearly 18 months to pay enough tax to fund one such yearly pension.While the figures may shock some voters, Mr Hockey said taxpayers had a right to know.“You need everyone to pay tax. Individual income tax is $190 billion. Social security and welfare spending is $154 billion,” said Mr Hockey.“People need to know where their taxpayer money is going. This gives them the chance to see - and if they are receiving payments, it doesn’t come from a money tree in Canberra, it comes from someone else’s taxes.’’The figures also show families where both parents work are also substantially better off because they enjoy two tax-free thresholds. For example, if a family is earning $100,000 a year with a single breadwinner they have a disposable income around $7000-a-year less than if both parents were working for the same combined income.Mr Hockey revealed that a shift worker he met inspired him to publish the information.“I met a cleaner in a building in Sydney and he said, ‘I work really hard, how many people am I supporting with my tax?’. I said, ‘How much do you earn?’ and he said ‘about $70,000’, which is a bit less than average wages. And he works through the night, every night. And he said ‘Why don’t you tell me?’”Mr Hockey said he wasn’t surprised by the figures.“That’s what it is. The Budget papers are about transparency.”

[NicF]

This kind of thing really annoys me. A single parent with two kids with an income of $30k will have things like childcare costs, school costs and the additional cost to feed the kids that the single person on $80k won't have. Much of the benefits given to the single parent will be things like childcare benefit, school card payments, school bonus and dental payments, all things to help pay for the kids. A far more accurate comparison would be a single person with no children earning $30k a year - how much would they get? I suspect the answer is not much at all.

 

Just to add, a single person with two kids earning $80k would also get a fair amount in benefits as well.

[Toni]

It annoys me too. Where is the data on what is spent by these "welfare rich" people. I would say that if you have children then you are getting those extra entitlements because you need them to pay for your kids needs. Once upon a time people felt they were entitled to the pension. I didn't realise it was a "welfare handout". I remember the days when superannuation wasn't compulsory and the normal labourer would get bugger all when they retired as their superannuation handshake wasn't like it is these days. (Although it is probably not a lot now either.) Once upon a time the pension was your "superannuation". You worked, you paid tax and it meant that this entitled you to the pension. These fat cat politicians have no idea about what it means to try make ends meet and they are probably trying to take the pension away from those who need it because they mismanage the taxes they collect - one might say for their extra perks,

[Tamara (Homes Down Under)]

I know that this is slightly off topic but have you seen the wages that are paid to apprentices?

My son is doing a 4 year apprenticeship and his wages are pathetic compared to his friends. There has to be something wrong when a shelf stacker at Bunnings gets $20 to $24 per hour (permanent / casual) but an apprentice gets $13 in his first year and is still getting $15 in his final year. Where is the incentive for out youth to do training when they get such little money? He does get centrelink payments (around $70 per fortnight) because of his low wages but they go down when he works extra hours so he never gets rewarded for putting in extra effort...

Just a thought...

[Diane]

I wouldn't believe Joe Hockey if he told me the sky was blue! The way the mainstream media are so biased in favour of this party makes me feel quite sick sometime - it's all spin and slogans. Even the latest budget concession to small businesses which is being touted as the best thing since sliced bread is not being reported truly: to listen to the reporting they are giving away something special but to quote an email from a book-keeping firm that I received

 

"I am not sure it is well understood that nobody is being given anything, they can just claim depreciation that they are entitled to anyway (albeit over several years) in a single year provided they will make sufficient profit in that year; of course they cannot then claim any depreciation on it in the ensuing years.

[Lily Rainbow]

I guess Tamara apprentices have the opportunity to earn a lot more later than a shelf stacker would (if the shelf stacker stayed in that job).Yeah not a good wage though for an apprentice I agree!My BIL started off in Adelaide as a car mechanic many years ago,and is now a manager of a major car dealership.

[Tamara (Homes Down Under)]

I guess Tamara apprentices have the opportunity to earn a lot more later than a shelf stacker would (if the shelf stacker stayed in that job).Yeah not a good wage though for an apprentice I agree!My BIL started off in Adelaide as a car mechanic many years ago,and is now a manager of a major car dealership.

 

I agree...he should earn much more later, but 4 years at a rate below everyone else's minimum wage is not really an incentive for people to do a trade. He has a family and rent to pay and it's not possible on his apprentice wages. We often take bags of groceries around and help with the bills.

It does provide the foundation for future advancement and it's great to hear of how successful people can be.

I for one would support a government top up payment to bring the $ per hour rate up to the minimum wage that is paid to other workers.

I didn't know that the apprentice wages were so bad and assumed that they would be set at the prescribed minimum wage...