VOTERS NETWORK ACTION FORUM
Latest Topics Chat
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 5      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next
Bruce

Hub Leader
Registered:
Posts: 38
 #16 
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
 #17 
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: 175
 #18 
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
 #19 
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: 38
 #20 
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
Margit1

Registered:
Posts: 4
 #21 
From an environmental viewpoint Australia is already overpopulated by more than 100%.  Instead of population growth we should aim for slow and well managed population decline which would effectively improve the standard of living for all - if properly managed,  something politicians and business leaders need to learn.    If we leave our TFR alone we will gradually decline as Australia's TFR is below replacement level.   That leaves focus on immigration.  Here we must aim for zero net migration,  in other words only replace those that leave Australia permanently.
We should have a careful selection process based on adaptability with all its offshoots.    A permanent visa should be subject to a probationary visa of 5 years,   citizenship should take another 10 years.   No dual citizenship.  

I also favour the gradual phase out of social welfare services (paid as transfers from consolidated revenue) and replace it with compulsory social insurance in 5 key areas (health,   disability,  aged care, unemployment - and somewhat different:  retirement).  Supplement that with a state-of-the-arts cradle-to-grave publicly funded education system,   mostly funded from all the social welfare savings. 



0
Roger2

Hub Leader
Registered:
Posts: 30
 #22 
In Sydney this week the roads and beaches are packed with tourists, students and new immigrants. It is well and truely FULL and no increase in infrastructure in the next five years will make much difference as long as immigration continues in excess of net natural increase. Immigration should be halted for a few years or reduced to about 70,000 from 190,000.
0
Greg

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 175
 #23 
Is the fee increase of 25% or more for private schools related to the large increase in immigrants coming into Australia, far in excess of our natural increase? Is this caused by the children of rich foreigners making private education much more expensive for Australian parents? If so. is this what we want?

We have seen the evacuation of one Sydney highrise sue to safety fears and suspect many more may follow. It is possible that many other high rise home unit blocks have flammable cladding? Has the unseemly rush to accommodate many more people in Sydney been substantially caused because immigration numbers are significantly higher that our natural increase (births less deaths)? Is it also a factor in the housing market which in addition to being unsafe precludes many young Australians from owning, that whereas our natural increase is babies who live with their parents for 2 decades, whereas the immigrants are not babies but old enough to  have babies of their own substantially increasing their impact and unlike babies requiring homes of their own? If so is this what we want?
0
Tania2

Registered:
Posts: 4
 #24 
Well I have come across this a little late, but I think you have to be careful with what you are saying as some people like me will take offence. I have forebears on one side who fled to the UK from Eastern Europe who would not have spoken English much at all. Population pressures have nothing to do with ability of migrants to speak English or integrate into the community.  I might add that most of us are migrants in one way or another. 

The Howard government increased the migration quota by about factor of 4 which has continued ever since, presumably to grow the economy and in response to business lobby groups. However per capita economic growth is not increasing. The pie is larger but has to be shared among more people. Plus the population pressure in Sydney and Melbourne is degrading living standards for everyone including recent migrants. 

Part of the solution is to stop political donations from lobbyists, scale back immigration to historical levels, and allow other industries apart from construction to flourish so that Australia and in particular Sydney and Melbourne reduce their reliance on increasing population as a means to increase GDP. Also very fast trains would allow growth of inland centres that could do with a few more people.

Forcing immigrants to move out of the cities for a few years wont work. They just move back when they can. Also its impossible to enforce anyway.
0
Greg

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 175
 #25 
This topic is now closed. Discussion points will be summarised so that network members can vote to decide what they would like governments to do, prior to us joiintly undertaking a Political Persuasion Campaign on those points. We expect that politicians will adopt those  policies they see as good and as winning them votes.
0
Greg

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 175
 #26 
My thoughts are housing grants removed for Sydney/Melbourne and levies on developers doubled in Sydney/Melbourne; empty foreign owned Sydney and Melbourne homes resumed. Limit building approvals for 5 years in those cities. Develop rapid transport to inland cities,probably easiest from Canberra. Build good airports in major inland cities plus highways and passenger rail or drive-on drive-off rail. 50% tax offset for all inland cities and towns, plus 150% wage and salary deduction when paid by inland resident busineses to inland resident  employees. Resident = 11 month of the year. Move half government offices from Sydney and Melbourne. Serious reduction in immigration. Foster global businesses from inland via NBN. House prices are so cheap inland  and the lifestyle so good.
0
Roger2

Hub Leader
Registered:
Posts: 30
 #27 

Finding a balance

Editor’s Pick Letter to CPA ‘In The Black’, Page 7 October 2018.

In 1798 Thomas Malthus warned that as population increases exponentially and food production linearly, population will eventually outgrow food production.

Scientific and technological advances have so far avoided the ultimate catastrophe, but as this excellent article makes clear (“Feeding the world”, IN THE BLACK, August 2018), we have to be seriously concerned that feeding the world may become an insurmountable challenge.

What concerns me about this article is that population growth barely rates a mention, yet it is at the core of all environmental woes. Food shortages, water scarcity, soil degradation, species extinction, global warming, destabilisation of the earth’s systems – all point to one culprit: human overpopulation.

We do not know the maximum population the planet can naturally carry, but environmental scientists have calculated an optimum population of between one and two billion people, given a comfortable but not luxurious lifestyle for all. Roughly 100 years ago that was the global population. To return to that level would require over the next 100 years a TFR (total fertility rate) of one: an average of one child per woman.

Currently, the global population grows annually by approximately 80 million, and UN projections estimate a global population of up to 12 billion before a natural decline may eventuate. Frankly, I opine that a catastrophic collapse will occur before that.

Like Alison Martin, my gravest concern is for future generations: those who want to see in a new century and still live in a world full of wondrous fauna and flora.

To make this happen we need to do more than just “feed the world”, we must reduce the human population gradually to levels that reflect an optimum balance between human and other species.

Margit Alm

0
Roger2

Hub Leader
Registered:
Posts: 30
 #28 
Let's be very clear about Population and Immigration. Both are too high and we need to stop the relentless growth.

Population, immigration and refugee policies are  connected to the provision of overseas aid.

We should provide contraception to women, medical and educational support to children  and men should be sterilised once they have fathered three children in third world countries. Some people can’t control themselves. Over population is an economic, social and environmental problem locally and throughout the world.

We are told every hour of every day on our television sets that 8,000 children die every day. Why?

0
Roger2

Hub Leader
Registered:
Posts: 30
 #29 
Well done. I think this says it all. I will add two more comments based on contact with an interested Melbourne party.
0
Angus1

Hub Leader
Registered:
Posts: 16
 #30 
As comments and opinion on this subject will conclude on 30 Sept 2018, maybe this second review on what we are all saying is appropriate, and may enable us to discern the more important points on this important subject.
The main concerns still seem to be around - IMMIGRATION itself :  and writing, with strong emphasis on : DECENTRALISATION away from Capital Cities : SELECTION OF AREAS FOR DECENTRALISATION : HOUSING : and POLITICAL FACTORS. No further comments have arrived on MIGRANTS LEARNING THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.


With IMMIGRATION, members were talking about how many people can Australia support, .... about too many immigrants relying on social security, .... with politicians out of touch with community needs and despoiling our environment, .... and whether we have the rainfall/plans/water storage to absorb more people .... An additional comment queried wealthy migrants coming to Australia, and abrogating responsibility for the mistreatment of the masses by the elite minority. Why is it that wealthy overseas people never seem to have any trouble settling/buying property in Australia.


Most felt that it was reasonable to expect migrants to learn to SPEAK/WRITE ENGLISH competently .... It was also felt that they should respect our customs, religion and culture;  whilst we have the obligation to respect and accept them in Australia.


From the earlier repudiation of genuine DECENTRALISATION, understandably, Govt's are very cautious of the idea .... The good news is that Fed. Govt . is already talking about having new migrants living away from Capital Cities.  Mr. Morrison said there are some places that need more people, and others that don't .... If it were mandatory for new migrants to live inland for(say) 5 years, then most would have settled in to their new community in that time, and not wish to move back to Capital Cities .... There was a view that Australian born families could lead by example and relocate .... An overall 'Strategy for Decentralisation' is required, which means moving many government administration and private businesses away from the main population centres. The 'Strategy for Decentralisation' should at least include :
          Incentives to business to move to designated centres.
          Incentives for newly arrived migrants to live in the designated centres.
          Incentives for current Australian residents to live in the designated centres.
          Upgraded infrastructures around the designated centres.
          Upgraded infrastructures for personal and business transport in the designated centres.
          Upgraded communication facilities for the designated centres
          Upgraded education, medical, work opportunities, and social service facilities in the designated centres.

A new view of merit is that country cities are a great place for children to grow up in. With cheaper homes, making new friends, and raising families in a less stressful environment ....  Another queried Australia's ability to create enough infrastructure reasonably quickly - sometimes it takes years and years; but lets work on the adage  - 'if you build it, they will come.'


This category wasn't in the first summary, but opinion has been expressed as to HOW WILL BUSINESS ACCOMMODATE DECENTRALISATION. The Government is Australia's biggest employer and it is therefore necessary for government to play its part in moving govt. administration away from Capital Cities. And whilst there will be enormous resistance from the public service and its unions - it will be critical for this to happen .... Ultimately the NBN will allow people to trade with the world from decentralised areas (or anywhere) ....  Private enterprise will follow with the correct incentives such as tax incentives to leave capital cities - but tax penalties for those ignoring the governments thrust on decentralisation.


The Govt. would have to carefully select AREAS FOR DECENTRALISATION, because huge amounts of infrastructure will be needed in selected areas (think - more schools, hospitals, roads, houses etc.) .... Clearly what is needed within the 'Strategy for Decentralisation',  is a clear nomination of those areas around Australia selected for this decentralisation initiative.  Everyone will then know which are the places to be promoted, which in itself is an encouragement to move to them.


In the Capital Cities we have seen HOUSING prices escalate enormously, yet where some foreign investors are leaving properties vacant .... The costs of Capital gains and of negative gearing need to be considered in any plans for decentralisation.


Of course, all these ideas will ultimately have to be endorsed in legislation by the politicians. And so the various POLITICAL FACTORS have to be recognised by us. Surely part of this would be pursuing having elections funded by public funds and not by donations. So much can go wrong with the professional lobbyists whispering away to politicians ....  Several more comments have been received since the first summary, a very powerful one being - 'Politicians DO get it.... They just don't care' .... Another comment was that MP's and Bureaucrats cannot cope - OK then, why are most Government departments rushing to reduce staff ? ....  Voters should vote for a candidate who sees decentralisation as the way of the future .... Of course there will always be those against this plan - eg. the Migration Council of Australia says sending migrants inland will not solve the under-investment in infrastructure. 

It was felt that over population is an economic, social, and environmental problem - locally and worldwide, leading to the query as to the ability to 'feed' this burgeoning population. 

As said previously, and repeated now, that I may have missed the occasional point or two, but by and large this seems to cover what we have been talking about in this campaign. Lets now sort out what are the most pertinent views and get the campaign underway.
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.