bankrupt senator

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by superyob

Thank you Ghia5L. What can I say? I am a bad man. I guess I was not clear there but I know of more than a few gibmedats who rort the system. They are my main gripe and have possibly slanted my view of the unemployed in general...

Even then people on unemployment benefits only account for something like 7% of the welfare bill.

Then out of that 7% how many of those are abusing the system?

Insignificant figure but easy target to prey on and create propaganda for.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

Even then people on unemployment benefits only account for something like 7% of the welfare bill.

Good point. Maybe we should extend this to those on the pension too.

[superyob]

There is more than 7% here Big D. And they do not mention the many who are on a pension, who are not old and who are quite capable of working. Once again, this figure is not small or insignificant. This is a rort. Why should they be allowed to vote, as the only party they'll vote for is the ones who will give them the most for doing nothing...

State Age Pension/Disability Support Pension/Newstart Allowance

Australian Capital Territory 23,944 8,868 6,227
New South Wales 787,530 267,990 222,711
Northern Territory 8,597 9,261 12,987
Queensland 454,814 165,431 158,245
South Australia 209,156 73,637 64,757
Tasmania 68,019 28,373 21,812
Victoria 600,879 201,733 177,641
Western Australia 210,016 61,620 63,354
Unknown 84,477 7,557 44
Total 2,447,432 824,470 727,778

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...2b8e7ed4ae8312

[mcflux]

superyob - I am 100% with you on holding a dim view of system rorters, they are parasites.

However, with regard to the long-term unemployed (who are rorting the system) & their right to vote, it's codifying who can/cannot vote based on personal opinion, which basically boils down to discrimination.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Ghia5L

it's codifying who can/cannot vote based on personal opinion, which basically boils down to discrimination.

and? plenty of benefits go to those with the necessary indigenous heritage .... why are some forms of discrimination ok?

[mcflux]

Originally Posted by b0son

and? plenty of benefits go to those with the necessary indigenous heritage .... why are some forms of discrimination ok?

You're right, those of indigenous heritage here in Australia definitely have the upper-hand...

[mcflux]

Originally Posted by superyob

There is more than 7% here Big D. And they do not mention the many who are on a pension, who are not old and who are quite capable of working. Once again, this figure is not small or insignificant. This is a rort. Why should they be allowed to vote, as the only party they'll vote for is the ones who will give them the most for doing nothing...

State Age Pension/Disability Support Pension/Newstart Allowance

Australian Capital Territory 23,944 8,868 6,227
New South Wales 787,530 267,990 222,711
Northern Territory 8,597 9,261 12,987
Queensland 454,814 165,431 158,245
South Australia 209,156 73,637 64,757
Tasmania 68,019 28,373 21,812
Victoria 600,879 201,733 177,641
Western Australia 210,016 61,620 63,354
Unknown 84,477 7,557 44
Total 2,447,432 824,470 727,778

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...2b8e7ed4ae8312

Australia's population is approx 24.3M. I jumped onto the ABS site to get some info:

In 2010-11, there were on average 116,700 long-term unemployed people, and over half (56%) were men. In comparison, 52% of all unemployed people were men.

(2016 census data pending...)

Let's assume that 100% of those long-term unemployed were honest when surveyed:

Many long-term unemployed would prefer to be working full-time hours.

In July 2010, three-quarters (75%) of long-term unemployed men and half (50%) of long-term unemployed women stated they would have preferred to have been working full-time hours (35 hours or more per week).

That means that approx 16,300 men and 25,700 women were, at the last complete census count, long-term unemployed and not preferring to have been working full-time hours. (How many of those though would have preferred part-time hours? Let's say zero for the sake of below)

Coincidentally the town of Moe has a population of 16,300, and the town of Traralgon has a population just shy of 25k

16,300 + 25,700 = 42,000

42,000 / 24.3M = 0.17% of the population could be long-term unemployed rorters.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]+2011

[superyob]

That made my head hurt Ghia5L but thanks for your input.

42000 is still enough to unduly influence an election by people who are siphoning 18480000 dollars every week. (42000x$440 assuming they have all reached their ultimate goal of pension permanency)

Also on the ABS site is the statement that you can't be counted as unemployed if you have worked 1 hour during the week. I do not trust the way they collate their statistics and I believe they are lying to us with rubbery figures about who gets what because the outcry would be huge if the figures were represented in a truthful manner. I think they would show a larger wealth siphon than we can comprehend...

To the rest of the forum:

My original question was not about how many fit this category but their voting rights. With the response of some, maybe my next question could be about whether unicorns fart flower petals and we can all hold hands and agree that they do while singing kumbyah...

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Ghia5L

You're right, those of indigenous heritage here in Australia definitely have the upper-hand...

Some certainly do .... you cant honestly say that all of those that are eligible and claiming, are in need.

[mcflux]

Originally Posted by superyob

That made my head hurt Ghia5L but thanks for your input.

42000 is still enough to unduly influence an election by people who are siphoning 18480000 dollars every week. (42000x$440 assuming they have all reached their ultimate goal of pension permanency)

Also on the ABS site is the statement that you can't be counted as unemployed if you have worked 1 hour during the week. I do not trust the way they collate their statistics and I believe they are lying to us with rubbery figures about who gets what because the outcry would be huge if the figures were represented in a truthful manner. I think they would show a larger wealth siphon than we can comprehend...

If the $18,480,000 per week makes your head spin, you'll have kittens over what MPs milk from the public teat. (Article link below is four months old)

$55m over 6 months is $2,115,385 every week. There are 150 MPs, meaning they're spending an average of $42,300 EACH per week. On top of that their income is paid with taxpayer money also.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-0...uments/7809062

And we all know politicians are a pack of useless ****s.

b0son - your statement is automatically true once a single indigenous Aussie rorts the system.

[MrEL]

Originally Posted by roddy1960

G'day , Any chance of Pauline Hanson getting declared bankrupt.. what if the fish n chip shop goes under...
One way to get rid of this oddball woman that should be ashamed of what she craps on about.. That night on Q@A said it all for me..Silly silly woman..
One Nation will not ever be a power in this country..Too many fair minded people for that..
Re the senator...If that's the rules then that's the rules..Cheers Rod

Pauline Hanson has the balls to say what a huge number of people think but are too cowardly to say.

[Mercury Bullet]

Originally Posted by superyob

I asked a question. About a certain group of people. This did not include the categories you are intent on virtue signalling about. Notice how I have broken this paragraph into short sentences. Easy to understand...

Well I consider someone who wants to sit back and live on $200-$250 a week ill.
That sort of money will not keep you warm in winter.

Who would want to live like that by choice?

But hey, it's much easier to label people like that parasites and brush them under the carpet. We are an advanced society in Australia are we not?

[Mercury Bullet]

Originally Posted by xtremerus

A donkey vote is not giving you a say. It is just gives extra votes for the first name in the raffle/draw of ballot selection.

It sways votes that are not representative of the electorate.
That raffle for that first position is known to get a certain percentage of the votes from those voters that are disinterested and lazy.

Better to do an informal vote if you just need your name crossed off the roll..

Sorry for not being clear.

When I said donkey I meant informal.