6 comments

[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 27.3 ms ] thread
> Australia needs to let go of "jobs from the past" and said those impacted by shifts can lean on the nations "very strong social safety net".

I'm sure that as more companies lay off, the tax base to support that safety net will not improve.

When will the new, reasonably-paying jobs emerge?

> I'm sure that as more companies lay off, the tax base to support that safety net will not improve.

Tax billionaires more? It’s where the wealth is.

How much will that do? You could tax their wealth (not even their income) at 100% and you would pay for a year of government shortfalls (in the US). I feel like at some level things really are just expensive to a degree society cannot afford. But maybe I’m missing something basic here?
Australian here, our "very strong social safety net" is a NIGHTMARE to navigate, and has stringent requirements that must be met. The pay you get is also NOT enough to live on.

I've walked past homeless people at the train station on hold to Centrelink on their phones. The system is hosed.

From Google:

"'Spruik' is an Australian and New Zealand slang term, primarily used as a verb. It means to speak in public, especially to promote or advertise something, often in an enthusiastic or elaborate way. It can also mean to give a speech, spiel, or orate. The word's origin is uncertain, but it's thought to be related to German or Dutch words for speaking."

The former co-CEO said Australia needs to let go of "jobs from the past" and said those impacted by shifts can lean on the nations "very strong social safety net"

I don’t think this is pro human

The welfare state is a huge failing and the tax base will not cover continued benefits. I’m not in AU but have seen a small tax base try to uphold a large welfare base and think that from what I’ve seen with Australia migration and tax madness it’s only going to get harder there for the common people