Youth Allowance Eligibility (1 Viewer)

[jennyfromdabloc]

You clearly havent done this have you?

That's irrelevant. I know people who have, and I know how much things cost in Australia.

loquasagacious has confirmed it can be done and has given an example of the sort of costs involved.

Feel free to point out which part of this is wrong.

 

[Steam]

if you're in a rich family, you'll most-likely be against it.
if you're poor then you wouldn't.

im average, and i think its a good idea, because it gives people more time to study at school instead of having to have a part time job (which takes up more than 10 hours of a person's week)

 

[alisondance]

i think they make it to hard for people to get particularly from rural areas. My parents are out of the money bracket but that doesn't mean all that money goes to me, I've got other siblings in uni they're trying to support and most of it goes into their super. Its harder hear as there is no option of staying at home and attend uni really, we gotta go. another example is my friend whose off a farm, the assets add up so she can't get anything but silo's don't put food on the table, they're struggling farmers.

People always say we are the future, it would be nice to have some support getting to it...

 

[aussie-boy]

if you're in a rich family, you'll most-likely be against it.
if you're poor then you wouldn't.

im average, and i think its a good idea, because it gives people more time to study at school instead of having to have a part time job (which takes up more than 10 hours of a person's week)

This is a ridiculous over-simplification.

A lot of rich parents simply refuse to give their children spending money, in the belief that turning 18 implies a responsibility to attain financial independence.

In addition, high income earners often pay very high rents/mortgage repayments and can have large families. As much as the Gov wants to expect these ""rich"" people to sacrifice their house location etc (that parents have worked damn hard for) to give their (adult) kids money, it just wont happen and it'll be the children who lose out financially.

E.g. Say I have a single parent, 3 siblings and $2000/week mortgage, $300 in groceries, $60,000/yr in school fees. I can't tell my mum to stop sending my siblings to expensive schools and to move to a cheaper area in order to give me cash equivalent to YA. She would simply refuse = I have to work.

Yes, this scenario may be rare, but I reckon common enough to justify additional YA tests.

In the end, the kids of poor parents will be able to live comfortably at uni, while the kids of high income earners will have to work their arses off. It's nothing short of discrimination on the basis of parentage.

 

[Oliver04]

That's irrelevant. I know people who have, and I know how much things cost in Australia.

loquasagacious has confirmed it can be done and has given an example of the sort of costs involved.

Feel free to point out which part of this is wrong.

standard rent for a shared room in the cheaper suburbs around newcastle uni is $120~ a week.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

standard rent for a shared room in the cheaper suburbs around newcastle uni is $120~ a week.

Right so he was $10 off and he managed to get by.

Plus if you shared a
room or lived a bit further out it would be even
cheaper.

Thanks for confirming that YA is unecessary.

 

[John McCain]

That's irrelevant. I know people who have, and I know how much things cost in Australia.

loquasagacious has confirmed it can be done and has given an example of the sort of costs involved.

Feel free to point out which part of this is wrong.

Youth unemployment in my area is over 40%. Seriously. There are no jobs.

Financial barriers have stopped me from attending university. It's impossible.

Kieran is fortunate to be founded in Canberra, where you can't walk down the street without being offered a job.

I can predict the response to this will be that "I should move to where employment is more available". I believed this too, and put my money where my mouth is, moving 400km from home to Canberra, trying to live in a city where I had no support networks at all for six months. The hours I was working for my job made developing a social life, any relationships, impossible. I worked for six months in this city, in a decent job, but I didn't come even close to saving enough for a single year of university.

I was dreadfully lonely this whole time, and suffered very poor mental health as a result of struggling to earn money to fund an education for myself. I had no choice but to move back home, to 40% unemployment. You can't really understand how hard this time was if you haven't experienced it.

That said, I don't feel entitled to anything. Life is just shit.

 

[loquasagacious]

This is a ridiculous over-simplification.

A lot of rich parents simply refuse to give their children spending money, in the belief that turning 18 implies a responsibility to attain financial independence.

In addition, high income earners often pay very high rents/mortgage repayments and can have large families. As much as the Gov wants to expect these ""rich"" people to sacrifice their house location etc (that parents have worked damn hard for) to give their (adult) kids money, it just wont happen and it'll be the children who lose out financially.

E.g. Say I have a single parent, 3 siblings and $2000/week mortgage, $300 in groceries, $60,000/yr in school fees. I can't tell my mum to stop sending my siblings to expensive schools and to move to a cheaper area in order to give me cash equivalent to YA. She would simply refuse = I have to work.

Yes, this scenario may be rare, but I reckon common enough to justify additional YA tests.

In the end, the kids of poor parents will be able to live comfortably at uni, while the kids of high income earners will have to work their arses off. It's nothing short of discrimination on the basis of parentage.

The thrust of this post is that some peoples parents may be able to support their children but chose not to and therefore the government should. This is nothing short of ludicrous and obscene.

Let us lay some ground-rules here. A high-income means a greater capacity to afford things. High income earners are free to do with their money what they like. They will spend it based on what makes them happy. This could be luxury cars, large houses, water views, yachts, private school, expensive holidays, the list goes on. But they are free to do what they want with their money.

High income earners can certainly afford to support their children but they can obviously chose not to. They may have to chose between a waterfront home or subsidising their kids (or if they earn even more they won't have to chose). Some may chose not to support their children - if they do chose that then they probably do want to teach their children financial independence. Promptly providing the children with YA completely undermines that objective.

But more importantly these families have the capacity to support their children through university - insofar as welfare exists it's role should not be to support people who can support themselves.

Who do you think pays for welfare? Tax payers. So what you're saying is that your single-parent which a mortgage, school fees, etc to pay should have to pay more tax. And more obscene still you are saying that the cleaner who works for minimum wage should subsidise the lifestyle of you and your family. That is nothing short of disgusting regressive income transfer.

 

[loquasagacious]

Youth unemployment in my area is over 40%. Seriously. There are no jobs.

Financial barriers have stopped me from attending university. It's impossible.

Kieran is fortunate to be founded in Canberra, where you can't walk down the street without being offered a job.

I can predict the response to this will be that "I should move to where employment is more available". I believed this too, and put my money where my mouth is, moving 400km from home to Canberra, trying to live in a city where I had no support networks at all for six months. The hours I was working for my job made developing a social life, any relationships, impossible. I worked for six months in this city, in a decent job, but I didn't come even close to saving enough for a single year of university.

I was dreadfully lonely this whole time, and suffered very poor mental health as a result of struggling to earn money to fund an education for myself. I had no choice but to move back home, to 40% unemployment. You can't really understand how hard this time was if you haven't experienced it.

That said, I don't feel entitled to anything. Life is just shit.

While I cbf looking up the stats I agree that the Canberra labour market is generally a healthy one. In my naivete this wasn't a factor that I considered when I moved here so I was fortuitous in that sense. I have also been fortuitous in terms of the specific employment opportunities available and the doors they have opened.

I know that you had a very rough time of it when you lived in Canberra and I can't fault you for leaving, however I think that had you found other employment in Canberra that things may have been very different for you. So I don't think your example undermines the premise.

As for the difficulty finding work during recessions it is not something which I have experienced personally however I've seen the stats and seen the fb status updates from my old school friends in Western Sydney. I think that more generous eligibility all the time would be wasteful but I also think that recession-specific YA criteria would need to be considered in the larger framework of recession management.... it strikes me as a rather Keynesian proposition... which carries it's own baggage.

 

[zstar]

People should learn more about savings and investment.

That way we wouldn't have all these people relying on welfare.

$250 a week rent + bills means you are not going anywhere fast apart to either a hospital for malnutrition/ being bashed for being in a shit neighbourhood, or going back to living with the parents.

Oh so I see, Life is so damn hard because you can't get the lifestyle you "WANT" rather than living within your means so you whine and cry for others to subsidize your convinient lifestyle.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Youth unemployment in my area is over 40%. Seriously. There are no jobs.

Financial barriers have stopped me from attending university. It's impossible.

Kieran is fortunate to be founded in Canberra, where you can't walk down the street without being offered a job.

I can predict the response to this will be that "I should move to where employment is more available". I believed this too, and put my money where my mouth is, moving 400km from home to Canberra, trying to live in a city where I had no support networks at all for six months. The hours I was working for my job made developing a social life, any relationships, impossible. I worked for six months in this city, in a decent job, but I didn't come even close to saving enough for a single year of university.

I was dreadfully lonely this whole time, and suffered very poor mental health as a result of struggling to earn money to fund an education for myself. I had no choice but to move back home, to 40% unemployment. You can't really understand how hard this time was if you haven't experienced it.

That said, I don't feel entitled to anything. Life is just shit.

Why don't you kill yourself?

 

[John McCain]

It has nothing to do with the recession, pre-recession youth unemployment in my area was still over 35%.

Prior to moving to Canberra, I was searching in my nearest regional center- newcastle- applying for a few dozen jobs a week, every single thing advertised and many non-advertised, I didn't get a single interview in 3 months of job seeking. I have a fair bit of experience and can compose a decent application.

The idea that individuals have total capacity for self-sufficiency is an evil myth, people need community support to survive, and where individuals find themselves isolated or unsupported by direct engagement with their community, government assistance may be helpful.

The thrust of this post is that some peoples parents may be able to support their children but chose not to and therefore the government should. This is nothing short of ludicrous and obscene.

I don't follow your premise. If those around me are wealthy, but choose to ignore any moral obligation to support me, why do I deserve to suffer relative to someone who is born into an impoverished home?

You seem to be suggesting it is just for a student born into a rich family, to suffer relatively because his parents choose not to invest in his education.

How is this situation his fault and why does he deserve relatively harsh treatment for the actions of his parents?

Morally, the student is entirely independent of their parents. If they possessed the wealth themselves directly, and then chose to waste it, not spending it on their education, and then expected a government handout, that would be unjust. However, they can't be held responsible for the actions of their parents, and they deserve to be supported by tax payers in this activity as much as any other student, however much that may be.

Who do you think pays for welfare? Tax payers. So what you're saying is that your single-parent which a mortgage, school fees, etc to pay should have to pay more tax. And more obscene still you are saying that the cleaner who works for minimum wage should subsidise the lifestyle of you and your family. That is nothing short of disgusting regressive income transfer.

Total strawman. You don't know his policy on taxation. It's likely he would say the rich should be taxed more to fund greater accessibility to education, not the poor.

 

[John McCain]

Why don't you kill yourself?

Because the government has legislated against me acquiring any of the easy means to do so. The means that still remain involve a great deal of suffering or risk of failure.

 

[loquasagacious]

It has nothing to do with the recession, pre-recession youth unemployment in my area was still over 35%.

Would you suggest that Labour Market Region (or their constituent Employment Service Areas) is taken into consideration when determining eligibility? If so would this apply to unemployment benefits because if they were also increased/expanded it could create disincentives to work....

I would suggest that a better use of taxpayer funds would be to encourage labour market mobility by reducing the barriers through incentives. A pilot program was trialled a couple of years ago which paid job seekers in Nowra and Port Augusta to move to identified jobs in the WA mining industry.

The idea that individuals have total capacity for self-sufficiency is an evil myth, people need community support to survive, and where individuals find themselves isolated or unsupported by direct engagement with their community, government assistance may be helpful.

You lost me at government.

I don't follow your premise. If those around me are wealthy, but choose to ignore any moral obligation to support me, why do I deserve to suffer relative to someone who is born into an impoverished home?

You seem to be suggesting it is just for a student born into a rich family, to suffer relatively because his parents choose not to invest in his education.

How is this situation his fault and why does he deserve relatively harsh treatment for the actions of his parents?

Morally, the student is entirely independent of their parents. If they possessed the wealth themselves directly, and then chose to waste it, not spending it on their education, and then expected a government handout, that would be unjust. However, they can't be held responsible for the actions of their parents, and they deserve to be supported by tax payers in this activity as much as any other student, however much that may be.

You do make a valid point. And far more convincingly than the previous poster. Having said that the current YA rules have provisions for an individual being declared independent of their parents. Imo this measure is already open for rampant abuse and expanding it would only exacerbate the issue.

My rough model (see my first post in thread) avoids the issue by making a loan available to all students.

Total strawman. You don't know his policy on taxation. It's likely he would say the rich should be taxed more to fund greater accessibility to education, not the poor.

Correct I don't know his taxation position. Which is why my point was posed in two ways. Either the burden falls on a single-parent who he believes is already struggling or it falls on a low-income worker who is much closer to struggling already. Or it falls on both.

The main point I was making is that money doesn't grow on trees. All too often advocates of welfare, especially middle-class welfare, seem to forget that when the Goverment increases spending in one area it must either decrease spending in another or raise more revenue.

 

[John McCain]

I don't actually believe in youth allowance and would support its abolishment

But more than that, what I really dislike is the myth that it's always possible for young individuals to support themselves and fund their own education in the current labour market.

 

[SnowFox]

I was on it because i was 16 and still doing my HSC, currently im looking for a Job, and there is shit all in Campbelltown.

 

[loquasagacious]

I don't actually believe in youth allowance and would support its abolishment

But more than that, what I really dislike is the myth that it's always possible for young individuals to support themselves and fund their own education in the current labour market.

How do you reconcile those positions?

 

[John McCain]

Education isn't a necessity even, the need for formalized education is hugely exaggerated. An unnecessary luxury.

And of course, I support loans and such filling the gap when youth allowance is abolished.

 

[Oliver04]

Right so he was $10 off and he managed to get by.

Plus if you shared a
room or lived a bit further out it would be even
cheaper.

Thanks for confirming that YA is unecessary.

you're not very good at maths are you?

you were challenged to live on 350 a FORTNIGHT, you said this was doable.

$120 a week was the going price (for VERY CHEAP accommodation, and im talking some distance from the uni). so:

350-
240
----
110

a fortnight to spend on food, bills, travel and of course, entertainment.

have fun on that bro.

I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore. You you cant see the practical realities of your own argument, let alone have experienced them first hand.

Los: if you had to live on 350 a week i'm very sorry you had to experience that.

 

[Cyrus the Great]

get a fucking job
I earn $330pw net while at uni
Im fucking rich