this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2023
2 points (100.0% liked)

Mildly Interesting

19647 readers
64 users here now

This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.

This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?

Just post some stuff and don't spam.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I assume "Other purposes" is govt kickbacks to mining and gas companies 😬

top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] gleph@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I love that it helps you see how little of the welfare payments are going to the unemployed, since that’s the part that concerns people the most.

[–] Z3k3@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Uk government tried this a few yrs ago trying to spin the welfare part as work shy bambots then it came out that the lions share was pension pots that took up most of it with the teachers pensions being the one the media focused on

The US has a similar breakdown by % as this Australian one, except that what's called "welfare" in Australia is called "entitlements" in the US and makes up about 50% of the budget. Welfare in terms of the dole aka money given to "work shy bambots" makes up only about half of one percent.

[–] Deez@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That’s a newer addition, when it first came out under a conservative Goverment, all welfare was grouped together.

[–] Risk@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Classic Conservative tactic.

"Evil, stupid, greedy-" stuffs pockets "-jobless, welfare scroungers!" stuffs pockets "Pensioners, vote for me to bring down our welfare spending!"

[–] MajesticNubbin@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

One thing to note about this breakdown is that it wasn't legislated with good intention but it was implemented in a very malicious compliance way that completely counteracted the original intention.

This receipt was legislated by the conservative party in Australia under Tony Abbott, the surface level intention was to "show where people's tax dollars are spent". However the underlying intention was to show welfare spending as a huge category that totally eclipsed all other spending in order to demonize welfare, particularly unemployment welfare. In order to build public support for rolling back that spending.

However when the letter was implemented, the welfare category was further broken down as you see here, completely working against the narrative that the government at the time was trying to spin (that unemployment welfare particularly was a huge drain on society).

[–] dinckelman@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I strongly believe that this should be the standard everywhere. Unfortunately most governments won't tell you this, because a few of them are busy building golden temples for their authoritarian leaders, and blowing half of it on cocaine while pretending it's the immigrants' faults