Middle class welfare - aka family assistance

How much welfare benefits do families get?

The Centrelink website seems to require a Phd to work it out but here's an example (which I admit is probably wrong - pls correct):

A single man with possession of two kids:
FTA - $15k pa
FTB - $6.4kpa
= $21.4k pa in handouts

If he works a min wage job he may pay tax of around $4.5k. He'll probably require child care which will cost the govt another $15k. Isn't it better he just stays at home and looks after the kids?

 

The wife is just about to have our first child.
It's done on taxable income (after deductions) not salary, right? So I should get a nice rebate!?

 

Seems like a nice little perk

 

Yes but if he goes to work, taking one job, he also creates another job in the childcare industry and is miles behind after having to pay for the benefit.

 

I regularly check tenants statements against what I expect they should be receiving when they apply, particularly if their circumstances are due to change when they move into our properties.

The website used to have an excellent calculator that was very easy to use. They seem to have removed it and now you need to pick through the various pages to estimate a total. Even then some of the payments I see can't be reconciled against information on the website no matter what I do.

I find Disability Pension to be particularly difficult, some of my heavily disabled tenants are only entitled to a pittance ($200wk or so) whilst others seem to be receiving upwards of $600wk+.

Parenting payments are also set up in a variety of different ways. A single mother of one or two kids should be receiving up to around $550-$700wk, though I've seen well over $1,000wk! I've also seen a doctor on a healthy six figure income still receiving one of the family tax benefit payments, with shared custody!

Youth Allowance is pretty steady, you receive about $300wk with maximum rent assistance, and you're allowed to earn just over $200wk in employment without affecting the payments.

____________________________________

In relation to your example- The best case I have is a lovely young lady who rented a house from us in Ipswich. She came with immaculate job references working as a Receptionist for a team at a local Real Estate we knew. When we asked why she left, she said she couldn't afford to work after she had her bub. Centrelink gave her more money not to work than if she'd worked and had to pay for childcare, even after subsidies.

 

This is a very real problem, and poorly understood by the public in general. My wife worked with migrants and saw those cases where someone would lose benefits that amounted to more than what the job paid. Now, not to confuse, thats not because the job paid so little, but because once all benefits are added together, it was quite a significant amount of money (for doing nothing). And of course the more kids involved, the higher the payments. The welfare state is a significant disincentive for self improvement, open to abuse and everything else.

 

This has been a problem for decades and no Government seems determined to fix it.

Thirty-five years ago, when we had our first business (takeaway food), we were after a kitchen-hand. There was a "Centrelink" office across the road.

We interviewed lots of people but none would work for us as the award wage for a kitchen-hand was less than their employment benefits.

My wife and I worked in the business for 84 hours/week, 12 hours/day, 7 days/week (even opened for Christmas Day) but we couldn't get an unemployed person to work for us for 40 hours/week.

 

So is the solution to all this not to offer benefits to people who would otherwise be on low income?

 

It's based on adjusted taxable income. So it's taxable income plus investment losses, fringe benefits, voluntary super contributions etc. Adjusted taxable income - Australian Government Department of Human Services
So your handout might not be as high as you're expecting.

 

That's not the case today and I doubt it was 35 years ago.

The dole is around $300 pw give or take tip. Minimum wage is around $700pw.

 

You are right. It was in 1983 (as our daughter was born in 1984 while we had that business). So it was 34 years ago. Sorry about the massive error.

And it was true once you add in loss of rental assistance, child allowances, etc once they took the job.

But I still don't remember you being there. I know you are always right so I will accept that you were. My belated thanks for all you help 34 years ago .

 

Yes it's all the additional perks that make welfare worthwhile. If one partner earns less than 100k per year, the other stays home and receives FTB. With FTB comes subsidized daycare, $1000 free dental per year per child and if the income is significantly lower than the above, there is rental assistance, a health care card for cheap prescriptions and rebates on registrations and utilies bills. Do just comparing dollar for dollar income doesn't factor in any of the above

 

It wasn't then and certainly is not now. The figures I quoted for the dole include rental assistance and for a single with no kids. You could have found someone to work for double the dole.

 

That's interesting,because about 35 years ago, as a 17 year old, I did kitchen handing as well as low wage factory work.

At that time, the wages were definitely higher than the dole, in my experience.

Kierank - were all your applicants solo parents?

 

When our kidlets were little we epitomised the working class poor. We tried a year with a working mother, but we were better off me staying home than having a job. There was no rent assistance given we had a mortgage. Take off all the expenses associated with being employed such as transport, grooming, expensive shoes, business clothes and all those bloody morning teas and gifts. This was before you put childcare fees in the equation. Hubby has always been on lower-than-average incomes.

I hear that the FTB is more generous now than it was in my day, but then they strangle those of us who want to get ahead by investing. It has been our experience that Centrelink works nicely for people who do nothing to get ahead, but lasso anyone trying to better themselves and move beyond it. When our youngest was in upper primary school I started working again. I lost two years worth of additional benefits in order to get a foot in the casual/part-time employment door. My wages in those two years were no more than what I could have received staying on benefits. The Austudy I received while studying at TAFE (we each had a health care card) were incredibly generous. I think they were wound back significantly the same year I graduated, so they probably aren't as generous now.

 

@Angel, thanks for putting in the effort to work rather than just rely on handouts. I'm sure your students and the teachers are thankful for the positive impact you have at school

 

Thanks Sis
My Kids appreciate the inheritance they stand some chance of getting too.

 

It is very difficult to get a minimum wage job that gives you consistently full time hours. I'd guess that most people working in retail and the like would be lucky to get even 20 hours a week. The government has stuffed up the employment market by allowing mass casualisation of the workforce

 

Ran through the calculators few months back with a one child scenario and it's interesting, if my wife stopped working and rented a home she would receive about 63/week or was it fortnight, can't remember exactly. But if she owned her home with a full mortgage attached she would loose the benefit completely.
If you don't own assets in your name directly you can take advantage of the system as many are.

 

Exactly. Same for people working as cleaners and community assistants.