Contemporary politics,local and international current affairs, science, music and extracts from the Queensland Newspaper "THE WORKER" documenting the proud history of the Labour Movement.
MAHATMA GANDHI ~ Truth never damages a cause that is just.
Wednesday, 6 June 2018
Australians have more compassion than our leaders give us credit for
‘Across the population, $660 per week emerges as the average level of
comfort to meet the basic costs of living – not to save or travel or
build for the future – but just to keep things ticking over’
Photograph: Julian Smith/AAP
It
has become a national sport to bowl up to Coalition MPs and ask them
whether they could survive on $40 per day, the amount unemployed people
are expected to live off and which the Turnbull government steadfastly
refuses to increase, as though misery were a sackcloth.
The skilful players swerve away from these deliveries, while those
who get trapped are forced to back in the proposition out of loyalty to
the team.
Meanwhile Labor confines its tax cuts to people earning up to
$90,000, a level it says represents a comfortable income; as the ACTU
and employers lock horns over what an appropriate minimum wage should
be.
At the heart of all these skirmishes is the simple question: how much is enough in modern Australia?
To help resolve some of these debates, Essential has created a new
index to understand what ordinary Australian think is required to live
comfortably – let’s call it the Punters Comfort Level.
We asked voters to identify the income range that they believed they
could live comfortably. We allowed them to define their own “comfort”
level, but prompted them to think about their housing, food, energy and
clothing costs.
The results show our government MPs are living in a very different Australia to most of the people they represent.
Across
the population, $660 per week emerges as the average level of comfort
to meet the basic costs of living – not to save or travel or build for
the future – but just to keep things ticking over.
A few interesting points emerge when you look at results across age
and income. First, while the $600 a week threshold is considered enough
for younger and older people, those in the mid-point of their lives,
when they are more likely to be carrying the responsibility of children,
say they need significantly more to get by.
The second less surprising finding is that the more you earn, the
more you think you need to survive, which makes sense given our tendency
to load up our commitment to the edge of our capacity to pay.
These findings do confirm that:
one, Labor is on pretty safe ground when it pitches $90,000 as a threshold – it’s about three times our Punters Comfort Level;
two, the latest minimum wage case increase to about $720 per week is
in the ballpark of providing a safety net for working families;
and three the Coalition’s assertion that anyone can live on $270 per
week is way off the reservation. According to these findings you would
need to double that and more to create anything approaching comfort.
Maybe that’s why, when asked, a majority of Australians reject the
Coalition’s Newstart freeze and actually support an increase.
The findings do show a sharp divide between the attitudes of
Coalition voters and the rest of the public, and notably those voting
for the small parties like One Nation and independents.
Maybe that’s because these groups of voters are more likely to have
been exposed to the lived experience of long-term unemployment, as is currently being chronicled though the Guardian.
Reactions
to a series of statements about the current Newstart debate suggest
that Australians have more compassion for those struggling than our
leaders sometimes give us credit for.
The most striking thing about these findings are the high level of
strong agreement for an increase in Newstart payments. Typically
statements surveys cluster responses around the moderate responses; on
this issue at least an equal number are passionate about their views.
Almost universal is support for the proposition that “In Australia,
no one should go without basic essentials like food, healthcare,
transport and power.” It is enough to make you think people are starting
to look at themselves as part of a society, rather than just the
economy.
I know – we haven’t put the counter arguments that manipulate disdain
for dole-bludgers, or played up the use of “our” taxpayer dollars to
support “them” or even tried to contrive the misery as some form of
tough love to get people back to work.
Instead, just for once, we have asked people if they would buy the
idea that everyone should be looked after in a country like Australia –
and freed of the manipulative framing, manufactured prejudice and
calculated downward envy, they are totally up for a bit of empathy.
Unlike the Coalition MPs playing “Australia on $40 a day”, they’d
support a government that went out to bat for those who need a hand up. • Peter Lewis is the executive director of Essential and a Guardian Australia columnist
No comments:
Post a Comment