Reading the Australian Labor party RSS feed on my Blog today and got this press release.

This disturbs me:
“Today’s report follows revelations that the Howard Government continues to reward rich families with obligation-free welfare, with nearly 30,000 families on annual incomes of over $100,000 being paid family benefits in 2002-03.”

So why does such a bourgeous bracket need such protection. According to the report, families actually on pensions or the dole can loose 60-100% of their benefits if they actually start working a job. Even if the job assumably pays less than their benefits. So how can the needs of the wealthy overshadow the needs of someone who wants to work, but can’t afford to get off the pension? Or even worse, having their only source of income taken away from them.

Totally agree with this; ‘If the Government is serious about welfare reform, then it should start by fixing the glaring inequities and inconsistencies identified in the Welfare Rights report, rather than trying to cut costs by making it harder for those in need to access payments.’

I’m not a staunch Laborite. I do however believe in the socialist idelogy of an equal share of poverty rather than an inequal share of wealth. So what good is it giving tax concessions to the rich and the poor more incentive to rob their houses to eat? Way to run a fucking country Howard. I hope it’s your Sydney manor that gets robbed.