this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2023
2113 points (99.9% liked)

Mildly Interesting

17468 readers
105 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I assume "Other purposes" is govt kickbacks to mining and gas companies ๐Ÿ˜ฌ

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] MajesticNubbin@lemmy.world 53 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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).

[โ€“] nxfsi@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

Instead it shows that boomers are the real drain on society

[โ€“] Clipper152@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Makes sense. I was already worried as soon as I saw "welfare" being bigger than "health".

[โ€“] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Well, are they lying? It's just true that welfare costs a lot of money (the "aged" category takes like half of my country's taxes)

[โ€“] Ilandar@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, they were lying. We are not talking about the aged pension here.

Still, in the long term it just improved the government's transparency