tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post5204431606372726661..comments2024-03-28T14:16:10.498+11:00Comments on Dr Kevin Bonham: Andrews' Phantom Welfare Spending CrisisKevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-44775609680662565202014-02-07T07:43:01.192+11:002014-02-07T07:43:01.192+11:00Your discussion is far too sane and rational to be...Your discussion is far too sane and rational to be Right Wing... What a shame you're not an LNP policy maker.qraalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13436948899560519608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-12434099320152058392014-02-07T00:05:51.397+11:002014-02-07T00:05:51.397+11:00Well I certainly didn't sick the comrades on y...Well I certainly didn't sick the comrades on you :)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11242466883171345013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-30637261033768738672014-02-06T22:43:03.721+11:002014-02-06T22:43:03.721+11:00946 was an exaggeration for effect, but it was a l...946 was an exaggeration for effect, but it was a lot more than twice. I also remember that at the time there were a number of GLW paper-sellers who refused to stop trying to sell me the paper even when I specifically asked them that they desist from disturbing me with entreaties to buy it. Some even did it with clear deliberate intent to annoy. Any party volunteer who handed out brochures in such a way as late-90s/early-00s GLW paper-sellers pushed their product would lose votes for their party. I guess that some movements, having virtually no votes to lose, don't have this problem.<br /><br />Oh and I do like it that in many Tasmanian elections HTV cards at polling booths are banned, and I will be proposing significant tightening of allowable HTV card content to JSCOM. I don't think they should be banned entirely for federal elections, but I do think it should be mandatory for HTV cards to include a prominent statement that the card is a recommendation only and that a vote will still count as formal if ordered differently. I'm tempted to add that the things should be available only behind counters and in plain packaging. :)<br />Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-10043246586545946002014-02-06T18:49:06.696+11:002014-02-06T18:49:06.696+11:00946 times, more like twice. How ever do you cope w...946 times, more like twice. How ever do you cope walking past the volunteers who try to hand out how to vote brochures on polling day!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11242466883171345013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-49828511295858550742014-02-06T08:27:50.856+11:002014-02-06T08:27:50.856+11:00Pretty sure I did do a lot more than have a differ...Pretty sure I did do a lot more than have a different take on politics, probably after being asked to buy 946 copies of a certain alleged newspaper too many although I clearly wasn't interested, or something like that. Anyway, my point was simply that those who have large families would find it much harder to compete if there was greater flexibility to offer and accept work at lower wages, which was what I was offering as a trade-off for the increased costs of a less nasty unemployment system. That does however bring up the side-issue of whether taxpayers should be required to fund so-called middle-class welfare for those who decide to have large families; I'd say ideally not but it is of course important to avoid any self-defeating measures. Really my whole aim with the minimum-wage thing is to cut through the objection about the burden on higher-income taxpayers of a better unemployment welfare system being so unbearable, and saying to those making that complaint: well, suppose there are changes made that cancel some of the increased costs out. Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-336680639447360322014-02-06T01:46:22.589+11:002014-02-06T01:46:22.589+11:00Grudge! LOL, you'd have to do a lot more than ...Grudge! LOL, you'd have to do a lot more than have a different take on politics to me before I'd hold a grudge! For 15 years! Glad you're not advocating "punitive welfare measures" even for "overbreeders", but I'm not sure what you are advocating then - an increase in the rate at which Family Tax Benefit, Large Family Supplement and Child Care Benefit and Rebate are taken away from large families on high incomes perhaps? There may be some room to move, but you could easily destroy incentives for both parents to work full-time, and entry of women into the workforce is probably the single biggest factor restraining birth rates!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11242466883171345013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-1005203684164695162014-02-05T23:58:09.801+11:002014-02-05T23:58:09.801+11:00The above poster has a grudge against me from stud...The above poster has a grudge against me from student politics days and this is not the first time this evening I've caught him interpreting my comments uncharitably, I suspect on account of that. Comments of the standard of the opening paragraph wouldn't get through moderation here if they targeted anyone other than me. <br /><br />To be clear on the "overbreeders" matter I believe that anyone who wants to have children at above population replacement level should pay for it themselves as much as possible. Wage protections based on a one-size-fits-all approach shouldn't block someone from accepting a lower wage they can live on comfortably just because someone with a lot of kids to support could not live on the same amount. I am not promoting any "punitive welfare measures" there and indeed given an adequate welfare net the "so you have to suffer" wouldn't carry as much stick as you might think. The harshness I refer to is simply that under my overall proposal it would become more difficult for a couple with lots of children but no capacity to get an even middling-paying job to support them at an above-welfare level. The reason for this is that they would be outcompeted for the same job by someone with less commitments and willing to do it for a lower total salary but effectively the same or more disposable income. Can't make an omelette (etc). This is a societal change that could not be imposed immediately but would need to be phased in slowly and carefully over decades.<br />Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-64300992666057924752014-02-05T23:22:32.852+11:002014-02-05T23:22:32.852+11:00I'm surprised to find you writing such an agre...I'm surprised to find you writing such an agreeable article... with one exception: "what I propose would weight outcomes ... harshly against those who ... overbreed"! Sounding a bit fanatical and bigoted there. What about the innocent children who are born to "overbreeders" - tough luck, KB finds your mother irresponsible so you have to suffer? Punative welfare measures are an inhumane way to reduce the cost to taxpayers of "overbreeders".<br /><br />Your comments RE the minimum wage are very similar to a comment I had published in The Mercury - http://prelive.themercury.com.au/article/2013/04/07/376294_tasmania-news.html: "I think the best value for money, broadest & fairest job creating strategies would be 1. Tax the rich & use the money to pay for a subsidy for the low paid & a massive reduction in the rate at which Centrelink benefits are taken away when people start earning money, while simultaneously lowering the minimum wage. & 2. More direct employment by government targeting the long-term unemployed & those likely to suffer long-term unemployed without intervention, rather than doing everything by tender."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11242466883171345013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-18303747057577830052014-01-29T17:24:22.616+11:002014-01-29T17:24:22.616+11:00Does anyone know if they pay for articles? Not cl...Does anyone know if they pay for articles? Not clear from their site if they do or not. Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-19613266297453350712014-01-29T17:16:11.877+11:002014-01-29T17:16:11.877+11:00I am surprised that more people have not raised th...I am surprised that more people have not raised that reservation (there's been a few but not as many as I thought) and interested that the article has had plenty of currency in the social-media left despite that bit of heresy, probably because of the strength of the evidence it provides against the Andrews claim. (I must say I was quite surprised by the outcome of my calculations- which probably says something for the ALP's failure to sell its own message on the issue.)<br /><br />There is a difference between my scenario and the US, which is that in the US the welfare safety net is awful. Business can, given the freedom to do so, create appalling McJobs at whatever rates it likes, and people will do them at a level barely above subsistence because they have no choice. In my scenario the dole would be raised slightly and the conditions for accessing it made far less unpleasant, and it would provide a competitive barrier to indefinite lowering. Some people would choose to work for well below the current minimum wage levels, but the jobs most likely to be accepted at those levels would be those that were interesting or that boosted future employment prospects. Work at these levels might also be taken temporarily by people who worked intermittently at a range of different income levels. <br /><br />The primary focus there is not whether or not it would increase total employment, but rather how to defuse the argument that if you make the welfare system less nasty, more people will bludge off it and the burden on taxpayers go through the roof. In my view the system as it is is so hideous that making it less demeaning is not negotiable and a way must be found to bear the cost increase, even if it means propping up the odd "bludger". I accept that that in isolation would be seen as unaffordable and would have no chance of adoption outside the idealistic left. That being the case, I propose to offset welfare spending increases necessary to humanise the dole, by cutting business costs. It could be in the areas I've mentioned, or it could be in completely different areas like environmental regulation. But wherever it is, probably someone on the left's not going to like it.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-41152481059266096432014-01-29T11:03:58.288+11:002014-01-29T11:03:58.288+11:00A great article which deserves a wide audience. Yo...A great article which deserves a wide audience. You should submit it to "The Drum".Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10293983285527556297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-44146902292366220612014-01-29T09:55:24.027+11:002014-01-29T09:55:24.027+11:00Very interesting analysis as always and I for one ...Very interesting analysis as always and I for one like it when you do policy. However, I’m wary about your last section re cutting the minimum wage to lift employment. I’m not an economist but as I understand it there is no consensus that modest changes in minimum wages have any significant effects on employment levels. Empirical studies in the US where minimum wages vary (creating natural experiments when one area increases its minimum and a nearby one doesn’t) have often shown either non-existent or very small effects. Where they find small effects, they tend to be among teenagers who in Australia (but not the US) already have lower minimum wages than adults anyway (eg the Oz minimum for a 15 year old is $6.03). I once read that one of the theories for why employment markets don’t seem to behave as intuition would suggest is that workers who are paid more feel better about their work and themselves and consequently lift their productivity.<br /><br />So, the outcome of your proposal might be to create a whole new class of working poor, with all the social problems that creates, in return for a non-existent to very small employment increase that may be concentrated largely among teenagers who, if they can’t find work, can usually study or sponge off their parents anyway. Not worth it by a long shot. Also, I don’t think you can compare being happy to work for $9 an hour while you’re young and single and doing something interesting and stimulating like editing a student magazine with the vast majority of minimum wage jobs which are crap.<br /><br />But please keep it up. And there are obviously economists in your camp too, just not as many anymore since the new empirical work was done.<br />Anon1https://www.blogger.com/profile/08239292379447424111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-38583523976759046802014-01-26T22:21:37.394+11:002014-01-26T22:21:37.394+11:00According to my mother (a pensioner) the script in...According to my mother (a pensioner) the script increase has already occurred. And without a breath of publicityJugularhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08293237664208390757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-31784086961037422732014-01-26T14:58:58.298+11:002014-01-26T14:58:58.298+11:00Kevin, a very concise rebuttal of K Andrews argume...Kevin, a very concise rebuttal of K Andrews arguments for examining the "unsustainable" level of welfare spending.<br /><br />Regarding the age pension you say there are some LNP supporters who suggest the "Coalition, if it wants to effectively rein in welfare spending, should start by addressing the age pension..."<br /><br />Andrews has said this won't happen. However the LNP are cunning on methods available for taking money from overpaid age pensioners. <br /><br />The recently suggested increase in the cost of scripts for welfare recipients is one easy way to get money back. A huge majority of age pensioners need regular scripts. Increase the cost to $10 per script and it's not hard to imagine the government pulling $25 per week from the average pensioner. <br /><br />There are, of course, many other ways the LNP may use to scrape from the lowest income earners. I have little doubt their "financial advisers" are busily at work! ausdavohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11854709638119878570noreply@blogger.com