VOTERS NETWORK ACTION FORUM
Latest Topics Chat
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 5      1   2   3   4   Next   »
Greg

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 148
 #1 
Let's have your thoughts on why we should expand facilities for existing Australians including inland and regional areas before inviting in more immigrants and should insist that the government insist on a 3 year mandatory English language course be passed so that we can all communicate with each other, particularly in case of an emergency or disaster.
0
Greg

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 148
 #2 
Many aspect of immigration have been put on the agenda - jobs, wage levels, home prices, congestion, regional development, water management, domestic, family and sexual violence, mental health, health care and education resources generally, language barriers, cultural understanding. If people are interested form all viewpoints we could put together an action hub on this.
0
Roger2

Hub Leader
Registered:
Posts: 28
 #3 
That is correct! It is not racism just politicians' stupidity! Greed and Growth are Good!
0
Greg

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 148
 #4 
Barack Obama speaking in Germany made the point that people concerned about immigration should not be branded as racist. In Australia it is not that Aussies don't want immigrants. Many don't want our beautiful cities destroyed and turned into high-rise slums like in the countries some of the immigrants come from. The fault lies not with the immigrants or other Australians but with the politicians who are thoughtless enough to invite the immigrants without thinking about who is going to provide them with housing, health care and education and working out where they will live in order to retain the beauty and our enjoyment  of our capital cities. There is a lot of space in Australia. Newcomers do not have to live on top of us and nor do longer term Australians have to live in capital cities when politicians can develop many more cities.
0
Sharon

Registered:
Posts: 5
 #5 
Saying that Australia needs these immigrants to look after our aging population is extremely short sighted. What has to happen when all our immigrants age? We can not sustain perpetual growth! The tighter we pack people in, the higher (and more violent) the crime rate.
0
Pat1

Hub Leader
Registered:
Posts: 19
 #6 
For those of you who have forgotten, please don't forget to vote on proposals on this topic as voting closes by the end of the month.


MPs need all the encouragement they can get in doing what the voters want.  Let us steer them in the right direction.

0
Roger2

Hub Leader
Registered:
Posts: 28
 #7 
All coming home to roost now after 6 years of unrestrained greedy growth. Poor workmanship in buildings, high immigration and high foreign (mainland Chinese government and non government) investment in the 'lucky country' that politicians can't live without. New car sales are down too! Forecasts another 10% fall in Sydney property prices by more than one economist. Also Melbourne falls predicted. More likely to be units (profit boxes in the sky) built in the last 8 years.
Remember how good it was in the Olympic year? Especially transport. We were united as a community with common purpose regardless of bad government and bad politicians.
0
Bruce

Hub Leader
Registered:
Posts: 34
 #8 
dear Margit1,  
what i meant by my response to you was not clear.  i was suggesting that we are so inefficient in so many areas that if we could concentrate on becoming more efficient we would not need so many immigrants.  e.g. 3 levels of government  moving to 2 levels would be a terrific start.
0
Greg

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 148
 #9 
IThere is a question that I know not everyone thinks important and that is language.If we want a "Tower of Babel" type community where we all spek different languages then we should adopt a common second language like Esperanto and everyone should learn to speak that. if not and immigrants do not rapidly learn spoken and written English then we will not be able to speak with one another. Not only will the Chinese person not be able to speak with the 4th generation Australian, They may not be able to converse with immigrants from France, Germany, Argentina, India, Palestine, Syria, America, none of whom may be anble to speak fluently with any of the others.
If we want a cohesive multi-cultural society then the first skill needed is the ability to communicate with one another.
What about our democracy? Those who cannot speak English will mostly be dependent on someone else to tell them who they should vote for because they cannot understand what our politicians are saying to the people. What about their susceptibility to fraudsters and interaction with police, judges, juries? Translators are a very second rate way of protecting a person's rights. What of the contracts written in English that they are required to sign?

If we want immigration to work well for all then we have to understand each other, talk to each other, resolve our differences by discussion, not with weapons. Everybody has to be given a fair go to live a decent life free of poverty and neglect. We also need government to provide reasons and opportunities to mix much more than we do and that requires a common language. Slowly is often the best way to go.
0
Margit1

Registered:
Posts: 4
 #10 
Japan is very clever. They have very controlled immigration, what is good for them.

Margit
0
Bruce

Hub Leader
Registered:
Posts: 34
 #11 
you are making a good point here. Japan has got around this problem for the last 30 years by becoming more an more efficient in their production of goods and service, but even in Japan now, because the birth-rate has dropped so low, they are looking at allowing immigration for permanent residents. We are so inefficient in so many areas that we could well manage with less immigration and still keep our standard of living. [I think we need to increase the retirement age as well].



Bruce

0402537480 (M) +61-2-94030532 (H)
0
Margit1

Registered:
Posts: 4
 #12 
Greg,



All welfare payments are transfer payments from consolidated revenue, from the tax paying working population to the non-tax paying retired generation, or simply welfare recipient generation,

from younger people to older people = intergenerational payments.



Governments in western societies tell us that because of an aging population we need to import younger people since birth rates in western societies tend to be below replacement level or stable. That is the Ponzi scheme. You rely on the import of people who themselves age, then you have to import more and import more.



These days many of the migrants however only add to the dilemma because they make high claims on the welfare sector, be it that they don’t work, be it that they have many children. These imports may add to the overall GDP, but actually make us poorer as studies have shown that our GDP per capita (the only one that counts) decreases.



If we have the type of population that I envisage (declining birth rate and zero net migration) we need not social welfare systems (transfer payments dependent on tax collections) but a social insurance system in key areas. It must be compulsory as people would not volunteer for it. It must be compulsory for all from poorest to richest, without exception. Don’t worry, genuine – and I emphasize genuine – poor people would not be disadvantaged. It should not be based on taxable income (too many loopholes here) or assessable income ; it should be based on a type of income specially developed for social insurance purposes, which would be similar but not quite the same as assessable income. It would be intra generationally based.

It would be legislated by the government and come complete with a regulator who is doing their job so that we don’t need a royal commission downstream.

It would be run by the people for the people. I would resurrect the old mutual societies, non-profit, community based with a community spirit.

That means: politicians cannot use it as a political football, it would not be subject to bureaucratic complexities, greedy commerce would be kept out of it, and certainly the unions have no say on it.

As is the case with this type of change, it would need to be phased in as the old one would be phased out, there may be some grandfathering to be done.



In principle, I have a strong objection to welfare payments. They are simply being exploited and they are a big drawcard for migrants form impoverished countries who have not the faintest clue how welfare works in the first place. I prefer to invest welfare payments into education. Properly done, that would give a country a huge return on investment. If we must pay welfare to individuals then they should be held accountable for it.



Years ago I made two lengthy submissions: one to the Cooper Review (on superannuation) and one to a Health Review.



I don’t have time to write lengthy submissions. At the moment a lot of submissions need to be done to protect our local environment where the property developers’ mindset is causing residents a lot of headaches.

It never ends.



Then I have to write to Labor before the elections and tell them of the inadequacies and unfairness of their proposals on franking credits, negative gearing, and capital gains – all done to win votes from sheeples.



Have a happy 2019.

I hope above comments help.

Regards

Margit
0
Greg

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 148
 #13 
Margit1, could I possibly ask you to amplify that comment. It sounds really important but I don't understand it and wish to. I understand a Ponzi scheme well, being an accountant , but am not sure how it fits with welfare or why welfare depends on immigration or population. Please excuse my ignorance. I am very interested in what you said but need it explained more fully.
0
Margit1

Registered:
Posts: 4
 #14 
Agree - they should be separated out into individual topics.   However,   from a perspective of de-growing the population they need to be addressed in a holistic way.    All welfare is basically a Ponzi scheme that relies on constant population growth.   When Bismarck first introduced it the possibility of overpopulation would not have dawned on him.    
We need systems that are intra-generationally supportive rather than inter-generationally.   That's what social insurance can do.
0
Bruce

Hub Leader
Registered:
Posts: 34
 #15 
Wow! A few subjects in one here. To gain headway on any of them they need to be separated into the issues that are there in addition to the immigration debate.

Funding of public education is one obvious item worth discussing.

The social welfare services must be addressed as separate issues which you have named in your list. Funding for retirement is definitely worth a good discussion to define what we want. I think it ridiculous that people should be almost forced to manage their own superannuation fund as the vast majority of people do not have the talent nor interest in managing money. We actually need some national retirement fund scheme with a statutory body created by the government [but not run by the government] to be a default retirement fund that people can opt out of PROVIDED they contribute to a private fund. It should not be like the UK version which was [and is] a way of the government borrowing now for funding by taxes sometime in the future. That system is purely a means for putting a bigger tax burden on our children and grandchildren in the future.

I am a believer in those of us who are capable have a moral duty to support those of us who are incapable but dislike supporting bludgers. I would welcome a discussion on how this could be achieved.



Bruce

0402537480 (M) +61-2-94030532 (H)
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.