Aussie Dsp

[numbskull]

scam

(sk

m)

Slang

n.

A fraudulent business scheme; a swindle.

tr.v. scammed, scam·ming, scams

To defraud; swindle.

[jinjinswing]

Thank you, well said and totally agree.

[jamescollister]

Think people are not seeing the forest for the trees, whether john Smith is fit or not to work is not what this is all about. Joe Hockey has said that Australia should not be following the European welfare system, but should follow the Asian system. They are not just changing the DSP, but hacking in to all the social security. Seems that even though I have worked since I was 15 and moved to Thailand at 53 years old, I will not be eligable for the OAP as I will be classed as a non resident.

People forget that the original system was like the UKs, you paid into a pension fund. The Government just took the money and changed the rules. What we will end up with is a system where you will work until you die and if there is no work you will live in a box eating from soup kitchens.

The Government has acted no differently than the banks in the GFC, they screwed up and now want someone else to pay and that someone is the tax payers and the poor. Jim

Unless I am missing something, there has never been a fund. All taxes simply went into consolidated revenue.

http://www.abs.gov.a...78!OpenDocument

Here is the kicker, and a dissapointing kicker for most.

Your (and my) taxes were never set aside in a seperate account and saved for us. What we paid in our taxes during our working lives were used to pay others peoples pensions.

When you reach retirement, it will be the taxes of those in the work force funding your OAP/DSP

So unless you had a private pension via your company (which is probably unfunded anyway!), or you had the forsight to get TPD/income protection insurance, then you are subject to the whims of the goverment of the day. Afterall, YOUR/MY tax money was spent the year it was earned, so you probably have to blame Bob Menzies, Harold Holt, Gough, Malcolm for not setting aside your tax dollars for use on you, at a later date.

What little Jonny, Crazy Kev and (monotone) Jules have in the coffers from this working generation is all that they have to work with, and they can spend it how they want...

The peversity in the system is why they introduced personal superannuation accounts in the 80's as well as complusory contributions. Note that this is an important reform, underestimated by most. It is pretty unique in the world (espeically the complusory aspect) and even in the US - home of the free marketeers - issues such as privatising social security in the way Australia has done it is just about political poision.

Note I haven't spoken to the equity of the matter. That is an entirely seperate subject.

But I think it is wise that people understand the system how it is, rather than how they wish it should be or how they imagined it to be.

In 1945 a Social Sevices Contribution was introducted, simillar to the national insurence in the UK. Government changed the rules so it could use the money for other things. Jim

the introduction in 1945 of the Social Services

Contribution, which was in fact no more than an

[samran]

Think people are not seeing the forest for the trees, whether john Smith is fit or not to work is not what this is all about. Joe Hockey has said that Australia should not be following the European welfare system, but should follow the Asian system. They are not just changing the DSP, but hacking in to all the social security. Seems that even though I have worked since I was 15 and moved to Thailand at 53 years old, I will not be eligable for the OAP as I will be classed as a non resident.

People forget that the original system was like the UKs, you paid into a pension fund. The Government just took the money and changed the rules. What we will end up with is a system where you will work until you die and if there is no work you will live in a box eating from soup kitchens.

The Government has acted no differently than the banks in the GFC, they screwed up and now want someone else to pay and that someone is the tax payers and the poor. Jim

Unless I am missing something, there has never been a fund. All taxes simply went into consolidated revenue.

http://www.abs.gov.a...78!OpenDocument

Here is the kicker, and a dissapointing kicker for most.

Your (and my) taxes were never set aside in a seperate account and saved for us. What we paid in our taxes during our working lives were used to pay others peoples pensions.

When you reach retirement, it will be the taxes of those in the work force funding your OAP/DSP

So unless you had a private pension via your company (which is probably unfunded anyway!), or you had the forsight to get TPD/income protection insurance, then you are subject to the whims of the goverment of the day. Afterall, YOUR/MY tax money was spent the year it was earned, so you probably have to blame Bob Menzies, Harold Holt, Gough, Malcolm for not setting aside your tax dollars for use on you, at a later date.

What little Jonny, Crazy Kev and (monotone) Jules have in the coffers from this working generation is all that they have to work with, and they can spend it how they want...

The peversity in the system is why they introduced personal superannuation accounts in the 80's as well as complusory contributions. Note that this is an important reform, underestimated by most. It is pretty unique in the world (espeically the complusory aspect) and even in the US - home of the free marketeers - issues such as privatising social security in the way Australia has done it is just about political poision.

Note I haven't spoken to the equity of the matter. That is an entirely seperate subject.

But I think it is wise that people understand the system how it is, rather than how they wish it should be or how they imagined it to be.

In 1945 a Social Sevices Contribution was introducted, simillar to the national insurence in the UK. Government changed the rules so it could use the money for other things. Jim

the introduction in 1945 of the Social Services

Contribution, which was in fact no more than an

Correction noted. Seems there was a fund, which then got rolled over into general revenue.

The full quote, Jim. Important bits highlighted.

"Revenue from the contribution was paid into the National Welfare Fund, from which all such cash payments were to be made, but there was no link between personal contributions and entitlements."

Call it a fund or whatever else. When they set it up there was something like 7 or 8 tax payers to one recipient.

That is headed lower, so that there will only be 2 tax payers for every recipient at some point not too far away.

People are getting old and there aren't enough to replace them.

Edited May 7, 2012 by samran

[David48]

Cough ...

I would like to introduce some civility and argument based on facts into the discussion.

On the internet I have looked but have been unable to find the answer to the following question ...

How long after you have been assessed as qualified for the DSP do you have to resubmit for a work assessment test?

Or ... does permeant, mean just that ... once assessed as 'unfit' to work, then never does the welfare recipient have to resubmit for the 'work test' ?

Just so that it's clear, my opinion on the subject is that … welfare, of ANY form, is a privilege and not a right BUT there is certainly a place for welfare in a caring compassionate society.

[David48]

Obviously this is to prevent the scam that previously existed where Aussies on DSP were spending 13 weeks (max. allowed) in Thailand, returning to Oz for a few days and then flying back for another 13 weeks. I'm glad they are closing the loophole. Getting granted a DSP by Centrelink is far too easy and too many people are taking advantage of the situation.

Earlier you refer to disability support pensioners returning to Aus every 13 weeks as a scam. This is not true,it was legal to do so. <snip>

I did some creative editing above and hope I got it correct ...

Even though I don't agree with welfare as a right (and not a privilege), I do maintain that working within the rules of Centerlink is not a scam.

[numbskull]

David48, a few months ago I asked c/link if they reassess after 2 years and they said no.but that was then.

[namoi]

As yet I have never been reviewed 2.5yrs since I was granted the DSP, but as I stated earlier a stressfull exercise, from my experiance the people behind the desk are far and above any learned doctor/speciliast in the knowedge of the medical field

[jamescollister]

Samran you will get no arguement from me that things need to be done and there is not enough money to go round. What pisses me off is the Government [all of them] take no responsiblity. They knew we had a aging population and there would be more OAPs and DSPs, if you are not a good boy and die at 50 there is bound to be more disabled.

What will be next, move the compulsary super into the general revenue and tell everyone they will instead get a Government pension. Jim

[sceadugenga]

So you have a government that allows industry to move hundreds of thousands of jobs off shore because Australian workers won't work for $20 a day or less.

This leaves them looking at huge unemployment figures with an election coming up so they cunningly push anyone looking a bit seedy onto the Disability Pension to artificially lower the dole numbers.

Who's fault is this? The unemployed person for taking it?

There would be NO job for them, not at Maccas, Woolies or pumping petrol.. the jobs are GONE.

It doesn't matter how sick they are or how many limbs they have, there's no return to the work force.

Let them go overseas and take their lifetime of tax contributions with them.

What does it matter?

[giddyup]

So you have a government that allows industry to move hundreds of thousands of jobs off shore because Australian workers won't work for $20 a day or less.

This leaves them looking at huge unemployment figures with an election coming up so they cunningly push anyone looking a bit seedy onto the Disability Pension to artificially lower the dole numbers.

Who's fault is this? The unemployed person for taking it?

There would be NO job for them, not at Maccas, Woolies or pumping petrol.. the jobs are GONE.

It doesn't matter how sick they are or how many limbs they have, there's no return to the work force.

Let them go overseas and take their lifetime of tax contributions with them.

What does it matter?

Are you actually suggesting that Centrelink pushes people onto DSP's? Do you have any evidence to support this? According to the current unemployment figures, Australia is at 5.2%. Where are the huge unemployment figures you are talking about?

Edited May 7, 2012 by giddyup

[jamescollister]

So you have a government that allows industry to move hundreds of thousands of jobs off shore because Australian workers won't work for $20 a day or less.

This leaves them looking at huge unemployment figures with an election coming up so they cunningly push anyone looking a bit seedy onto the Disability Pension to artificially lower the dole numbers.

Who's fault is this? The unemployed person for taking it?

There would be NO job for them, not at Maccas, Woolies or pumping petrol.. the jobs are GONE.

It doesn't matter how sick they are or how many limbs they have, there's no return to the work force.

Let them go overseas and take their lifetime of tax contributions with them.

What does it matter?

Are you actually suggesting that Centrelink pushes people onto DSP's? Do you have any evidence to support this? According to the current unemployment figures, Australia is at 5.2%. Where are the huge unemployment figures you are talking about?

Think if that was the real unemployment rate the Government would be rolling in tax revenue. A third of the work force are part time or casual and many will be recieving welfare as they don't make enough to live, they do not appear on the unemployment rate. Even those who are registered as unemployed,but pick up some casual work every now and then are not counted. Now the Government is saying that 300 to 400,000 DSP are in fact fit for work and can go on the dole. Quess you get less money on the dole. Plus you get a larger pool of minimun wage casual workers, keeping the wages down. Jim

[sceadugenga]

So you have a government that allows industry to move hundreds of thousands of jobs off shore because Australian workers won't work for $20 a day or less.

This leaves them looking at huge unemployment figures with an election coming up so they cunningly push anyone looking a bit seedy onto the Disability Pension to artificially lower the dole numbers.

Who's fault is this? The unemployed person for taking it?

There would be NO job for them, not at Maccas, Woolies or pumping petrol.. the jobs are GONE.

It doesn't matter how sick they are or how many limbs they have, there's no return to the work force.

Let them go overseas and take their lifetime of tax contributions with them.

What does it matter?

Are you actually suggesting that Centrelink pushes people onto DSP's? Do you have any evidence to support this? According to the current unemployment figures, Australia is at 5.2%. Where are the huge unemployment figures you are talking about?

You really have dispensed with logic in your determination not to be wrong haven't you?

The trend I refer to began under the Keating government and was enthusiastically embraced by the Liberals.

As Jamescollister infers, put another half a million on that 5% and see how long any government would last.

[giddyup]

So you have a government that allows industry to move hundreds of thousands of jobs off shore because Australian workers won't work for $20 a day or less.

This leaves them looking at huge unemployment figures with an election coming up so they cunningly push anyone looking a bit seedy onto the Disability Pension to artificially lower the dole numbers.

Who's fault is this? The unemployed person for taking it?

There would be NO job for them, not at Maccas, Woolies or pumping petrol.. the jobs are GONE.

It doesn't matter how sick they are or how many limbs they have, there's no return to the work force.

Let them go overseas and take their lifetime of tax contributions with them.

What does it matter?

Are you actually suggesting that Centrelink pushes people onto DSP's? Do you have any evidence to support this? According to the current unemployment figures, Australia is at 5.2%. Where are the huge unemployment figures you are talking about?

You really have dispensed with logic in your determination not to be wrong haven't you?

The trend I refer to began under the Keating government and was enthusiastically embraced by the Liberals.

As Jamescollister infers, put another half a million on that 5% and see how long any government would last.

I see you avoided the question re Centrelink pushing people onto DSP's.

[jamescollister]

I see you avoided the question re Centrelink pushing people onto DSP's.

Think it is blatantly obvious if 300 or 400,000 DSP are fit to work then someone moved them from the unemployment register. Or did they all just suddenly get better. Jim

[giddyup]

I see you avoided the question re Centrelink pushing people onto DSP's.

Think it is blatantly obvious if 300 or 400,000 DSP are fit to work then someone moved them from the unemployment register. Or did they all just suddenly get better. Jim

The reason they got moved from the unemployment register (if they were ever on it) is because they all applied for DSP's, not because some Centrelink clerk decided they looked a bit "seedy" (sceadugenga's comment) . Who says there are 400,000 fit for work?

[jamescollister]

I see you avoided the question re Centrelink pushing people onto DSP's.

Think it is blatantly obvious if 300 or 400,000 DSP are fit to work then someone moved them from the unemployment register. Or did they all just suddenly get better. Jim

The reason they got moved from the unemployment register (if they were ever on it) is because they all applied for DSP's, not because some Centrelink clerk decided they looked a bit "seedy" (sceadugenga's comment) . Who says there are 400,000 fit for work?

The government says that 40% of DSP claiments are fit for work.

Call me untrusting of our leadres motives, but what's the bet that the Labor party who have no chance of being re elected will have timed the chance from DSP to unemployed to increase the unemployment after they lost the next election. They will have some type of DSP return to work scheme that is not attached to the unemployment numbers. Then when they lose office the DSP scheme will be over and the DSPs will move over to the unemployment. Of course the liberals will be aware of this and will put in place some other scheme to keep them off the dole. Labor will jump up and down saying the Libs are fudging the unemployment numbers. The good of the country does not come into it, only the good of the politicans. Jim

[OLDAUSSIE]

So you have a government that allows industry to move hundreds of thousands of jobs off shore because Australian workers won't work for $20 a day or less.

This leaves them looking at huge unemployment figures with an election coming up so they cunningly push anyone looking a bit seedy onto the Disability Pension to artificially lower the dole numbers.

Who's fault is this? The unemployed person for taking it?

There would be NO job for them, not at Maccas, Woolies or pumping petrol.. the jobs are GONE.

It doesn't matter how sick they are or how many limbs they have, there's no return to the work force.

Let them go overseas and take their lifetime of tax contributions with them.

What does it matter?

Are you actually suggesting that Centrelink pushes people onto DSP's? Do you have any evidence to support this? According to the current unemployment figures, Australia is at 5.2%. Where are the huge unemployment figures you are talking about?

I can tell you what happened to me. In 1995 I was on sickness benefits, I was interviewed by C/L and told to change over to DSP. At the time I wanted to return to the work force and I tried. My Dr advised against this and said I should be on DSP So I followed the instructions of My Dr & C/L. After I changed over I found out that they were doing this to most people on sickness benefits the reason was to make the un employment numbers look better for the Government. In some areas of Australia at that time the un employment rate was running as high as 17%, this did not look good for the Govt.

Are you happy now giddyup?

[giddyup]

So you have a government that allows industry to move hundreds of thousands of jobs off shore because Australian workers won't work for $20 a day or less.

This leaves them looking at huge unemployment figures with an election coming up so they cunningly push anyone looking a bit seedy onto the Disability Pension to artificially lower the dole numbers.

Who's fault is this? The unemployed person for taking it?

There would be NO job for them, not at Maccas, Woolies or pumping petrol.. the jobs are GONE.

It doesn't matter how sick they are or how many limbs they have, there's no return to the work force.

Let them go overseas and take their lifetime of tax contributions with them.

What does it matter?

Are you actually suggesting that Centrelink pushes people onto DSP's? Do you have any evidence to support this? According to the current unemployment figures, Australia is at 5.2%. Where are the huge unemployment figures you are talking about?

I can tell you what happened to me. In 1995 I was on sickness benefits, I was interviewed by C/L and told to change over to DSP. At the time I wanted to return to the work force and I tried. My Dr advised against this and said I should be on DSP So I followed the instructions of My Dr & C/L. After I changed over I found out that they were doing this to most people on sickness benefits the reason was to make the un employment numbers look better for the Government. In some areas of Australia at that time the un employment rate was running as high as 17%, this did not look good for the Govt.

Are you happy now giddyup?

I don't know why your comments should make me happy, obviously a poor attempt at sarcasm. According to anecdotal comments on this post, the DSP isn't easy to get, but obviously it differs from person to person and everyone has their own take on the subject.

Edited May 8, 2012 by giddyup

[sandgroper2]

I am 62 and on a DSP (not by choice) with a small top up from a small super saving, I found it difficult and stressfull to get and people who lable me a bludger, well they can kiss my A**, worked hard and paid my tax since i was 15

2 months before I turned 65,April, i tried to get the DSP, Ive got serious back problems, but I was refused as i could sit for a few hours. So, it aint easy to get the DSP now. Get part OAP now anyway.

[giddyup]

I am 62 and on a DSP (not by choice) with a small top up from a small super saving, I found it difficult and stressfull to get and people who lable me a bludger, well they can kiss my A**, worked hard and paid my tax since i was 15

2 months before I turned 65,April, i tried to get the DSP, Ive got serious back problems, but I was refused as i could sit for a few hours. So, it aint easy to get the DSP now. Get part OAP now anyway.

Why would you even bother to apply 2 months before you turned 65? As soon as you turn 65 you would automatically transfer to an OAP anyway.

Edited May 8, 2012 by giddyup

[numbskull]

Living with any disability let alone one severe enough to qualify for the dsp isn't easy but something we must do, so forgive us if we get cranky when we have to also endure insults and false accusations. We are bound by the decisions of others so if any of you have a problem talk to them.

giddyup ,It differs from person to person because the conditions/ailments vary,also some know more about their right than others and some just give up . You must consider that when applying for the dsp you will be sick or injured or both,probably depressed , have limited resources and the only where to get help and advice is from the department that you are fighting with.If your claim is refused you can appeal and go through it all over again but this time you will be up against a Dr and a lawyer that have I believe been hand picked. I have been through it and it's no fun. If you do give up you will be living with your disability on about $250 a week .

Remember all ,when slagging off dsp'ers, It's not a life style choice

OK! cold beers all round.

[jinjinswing]

He is the type of person who sees only black or white, has been insulated most of his life and lacks any real foresight or compassion or understanding that were not all supermen.

[numbskull]

He is the type of person who sees only black or white, has been insulated most of his life and lacks any real foresight or compassion or understanding that were not all supermen.

Did you type that with compassion and understanding.

This is a great opportunity to share a bit of information and even gain some support, as opposed to a cock fight. don't ya think?

[oldsailor35]

I don't begrudge DSP recipients the right to travel outside of Australia (like a normal person) for holidays etc, but as was well publicised a year or so back, there are a lot of DSP recipients who spend 90% of their time living in Thailand or elsewhere, who ONLY travel back to Australia every 13 weeks to comply with Centrelink conditions. If a person on DSP is well enough to be travelling back and forward every 13 weeks to Oz, and probably spending his time in Thailand either playing golf or bar hopping (whatever his interests are) IMO he or she is capable of some kind of paid work. The system shouldn't avail people of an early retirement until they reach 65 and then get the OAP.

In the old days a migrant could come to Australia, work for a brief period, claim "Mediterranean back", get granted a DSP and retire in relative comfort back in the old country for the rest of his days.

There are a number of issues to consider here:

1. Does it cost the Australian taxpayer more or less to have welfare recipients living in Australia or living overseas? I would suggest the latter

2. Of those that are well enough to do some work, are there in fact jobs available? Or is this realy just about going through the motions via sitting opposite a fidgetting Centrelink staffer for 20 minutes every six weeks so they can ask "how have you been?" and then tick a box

3. If the system of assessing whether people are in fact permanently disabled (and to what extent) is not effective, then fix that problem and don't lump it in with the issue of whether people have a right to choose to live overseas all or part of the year

3. This is not about the "old days", it's about today

I wouldn't like to see the "old days" returning to the present. If Australia has to import labour (meat workers, Tongan fruitpickers etc.) because there are now so many bludgers who don't want to work, I would say, yes, there are jobs. Just because a lot of welfare recipients consider those jobs are either too hard or beneath them isn't an argument. Unfortunately the system allows people to pick and choose, and you can lead a horse to water etc. I know (I won't call them friends) of several perfectly healthy people who have never had a permanent job, they just play the system, turn up for job interviews like they just got out of bed (which was probably the case) and show zero interest in the job. No one wants to hire them.

I don't know how you can say it costs the taxpayer less if the welfare recipient is living abroad, if all monies paid to him/her are spent outside the country. I worked all my life in Australia, paid my taxes, put aside money for retirement etc, why should somebody get a free ride?

In cases like this, the prospective employer should have to lodge a form stating exactly why the person was not employed. Centrelink should then take appropiate action.

[oldsailor35]

OMG ! what stupid statements dribbling from Giddyup. There have not always been good wages in the building industry, probably only the last couple of years, and believe me, with the cost of living in oz , it would take a lot more than 2 years to accumulate enough to retire as this fool is suggesting !

[oldsailor35]

jinjinswing........why dont we just cancel everything...........or you could become a member of parliament, then "no worries mate"

[giddyup]

OMG ! what stupid statements dribbling from Giddyup. There have not always been good wages in the building industry, probably only the last couple of years, and believe me, with the cost of living in oz , it would take a lot more than 2 years to accumulate enough to retire as this fool is suggesting !

Who said anything about 2 years you neanderthal? i said he could retire at 50, does this mean he started work at 48? Why don't you actually read the comments instead of just mud slinging. Only the last two years of good wages for tradesmen? You really are a dropkick.

[giddyup]

He is the type of person who sees only black or white, has been insulated most of his life and lacks any real foresight or compassion or understanding that were not all supermen.

.....and you are the type of person that can only respond with insults.

[edwinclapham]

OMG ! what stupid statements dribbling from Giddyup. There have not always been good wages in the building industry, probably only the last couple of years, and believe me, with the cost of living in oz , it would take a lot more than 2 years to accumulate enough to retire as this fool is suggesting !

Who said anything about 2 years you neanderthal? i said he could retire at 50, does this mean he started work at 48? Why don't you actually read the comments instead of just mud slinging. Only the last two years of good wages for tradesmen? You really are a dropkick.

Shame when a perfectly good thread gets down to this level!