Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here’s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Robbing Peter to pay middle-class Paul

By David Leyonhjelm - posted Tuesday, 28 June 2016


There is no government today that restricts itself to the provision of law and order, justice, and national defence. We have all become accustomed to the state providing an array of services.

Some of these are more justified than others. Well accepted is support for the truly poor and needy – nobody wants to see anyone starving or children missing out on health care or an education through no fault of their own.

Prior to the welfare state, in prosperous societies, private philanthropy undertook such tasks. That’s obviously changed, with various adverse effects. There is an inverse relationship between the size, scope, and number of private voluntary charities and the size of the welfare state. Governments tend to be inefficient, spending about 70% on bureaucracy to get 30% to the poor, whereas the ratio is reversed for the private sector.

Advertisement

State welfare and intervention also tends to undermine the spirit of voluntarism, which is still strong in Australian culture. The Victorian government’s efforts to impose union rules on the Country Fire Authority, a volunteer and community based organisation, is likely to have serious implications for its future for example.

But our sense of compassion, of extending a “helping hand”, comes to a shuddering halt when we are forced to assist those who don’t need help but are receiving aid merely because someone wants their vote.

This is the situation in Australia today. Millions of people who do not need welfare are receiving it. Millions who are quite capable of supporting themselves are being supported by others.

I am not merely referring to Disability Support Pensioners who are not disabled, or those on Newstart who refuse to work. A far bigger problem is welfare paid to people who have good jobs and are not even remotely poor. This is known as “middle-class welfare”.

One of the most egregious examples is childcare support. This comes in two forms: the Child Care Benefit is paid to families with incomes up to $178,023 (or higher if you have more than three children), while the Child Care Rebate is not means tested at all.

From July 2018 the Government wants to combine these into a single payment which will fall to $10,000 per child if family income reaches $340,000, then continue regardless of a family’s income. Those on million dollar incomes will still receive it.

Advertisement

Another example is Family Tax Benefits. Families withsix children, depending on their ages, are eligible for this, until their income reaches $242,000. There is no assets test either; a family with assets of over $5 million, a level most Australian households will never reach, can be eligible to receive tax money paid by a single person on a modest income. 

Yet another is student loans. All Australian citizens, regardless of their household income or assets, have access to loans for higher education that are extremely concessional. No interest rate applies and the value of the debts is simply indexed to the CPI. Again, some students with high household net assets or income will inevitably be subsidised by those who are far less prosperous.

Finally, a retired aged couple that owns their home can have an annual tax-free income over $75,000 before eligibility for the age pension ceases. Moreover, pension eligibility is not influenced by the value of the family home. There are people living in multi-million dollar homes receiving pensions funded by the taxes of people who are never likely to own a home.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

This article was first published in the Australian Financial Review.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

3 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

David Leyonhjelm is the Liberal Democrat Senator for NSW.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by David Leyonhjelm

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of David Leyonhjelm
Article Tools
Comment 3 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy