Mosha
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 5,803 
Likes: 3,012
|
Post by Mosha on Jan 14, 2019 12:28:59 GMT 7
Some refugees in Australia sending welfare payments abroad
John Masanauskas, HeraldSun
June 21, 2011 2:00pm
SOME refugees in Australia are sending welfare payments abroad as part of a multi-billion-dollar industry to help relatives in poor countries.
A report commissioned by the Immigration Department says that many recent arrivals from Africa fear losing social respect if they do not send cash home.
Using World Bank data, the report estimated that up to $6 billion flows out of Australia each year in payments to people overseas. It said that a survey of humanitarian arrivals showed that 70 per cent had sent money home.
For Africans, it was not unusual to send up to 20 per cent of their weekly incomes to families.
The average amount was $200 a month and each refugee was supporting about five people back home.
Report author Prof Graeme Hugo, an Adelaide University demographer, said yesterday that many refugees and other humanitarian entrants were making big sacrifices.
"In some cases, people are obviously doing without things in order to be able to support families at home," he said.
"It's predominantly supporting close family, which in other circumstances would be with them, so there's a very strong feeling of obligation that many have."
Prof Hugo's report said that a study of Somalian and Ethiopian refugees in Melbourne and Adelaide had revealed the overwhelming majority sent money home, despite almost one in five being on the dole and 42 per cent earning less than $20,000 a year.
More than half said they did it to maintain their family's wellbeing, but "a significant number (22.4 per cent) felt they would lose social respect if they didn't send money", the report said.
Swinburne University migration expert Dr Katharine Betts said she was astonished by the scale of the payments leaving Australia.
"It might be a concern that taxpayers' money was being channelled in this direction," she said.
"I would worry about the welfare of families that felt an obligation to support people overseas when they were struggling here."
Prof Hugo said that humanitarian arrivals made a significant contribution to Australia and the Federal Government should consider making it easier for them to send money to relatives abroad.
"Anything that countries like Australia can do to facilitate that sending back of finances can potentially have good development impacts in the origin country," he said.
masanauskasj@heraldsun.com.au
|
|
rubl
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
The wondering type
Posts: 23,997
Likes: 9,333
|
Post by rubl on Jan 14, 2019 13:54:37 GMT 7
AS long as sending money back home doesn't create extra demands on local support there doesn't seem to be much against it.
Remember that in a way retirees who receive a pension from back home but spent it in another country could be judged as doing something similar.
|
|
AyG
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 5,871
Likes: 4,555
|
Post by AyG on Jan 14, 2019 14:55:28 GMT 7
AS long as sending money back home doesn't create extra demands on local support there doesn't seem to be much against it. Surely it's evidence that economic migrants are being given excessively generous benefits if they have money left over to send abroad. It's very similar to the benefits situation in the UK where people who've never worked a day in their lives have enough money for large TV screens, cable TV, Internet access, tobacco and drugs. |
|
oldie
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 6,086
Likes: 4,858
|
Post by oldie on Jan 14, 2019 16:01:40 GMT 7
Australians sit at the beach all day drinking beer and getting good coin for their efforts.
Of course no-one works, pays a mortgage and a pile of other expenses including taxes on everything.
|
|
siampolee
Detective
Alive alive O
Posts: 14,450
Likes: 9,289
|
Post by siampolee on Jan 14, 2019 16:20:04 GMT 7
Those you quote above have paid in full for both their state and private benefits I am one of them.
I invested via the private sector as well as compulsory schemes operated by the state in its assorted entities as does any working person(s)in the U K. The incomes now received are my/our rights we paid in full.
Now someone living on welfare remits money back to his family is in truth very different from those who have paid their way It's no contest, they are the people who are creating extra demands on the hard working taxpayers.
|
|
Mosha
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 5,803
Likes: 3,012
|
Post by Mosha on Jan 14, 2019 17:28:23 GMT 7
AS long as sending money back home doesn't create extra demands on local support there doesn't seem to be much against it. Remember that in a way retirees who receive a pension from back home but spent it in another country could be judged as doing something similar. Except we paid for that pension. |
|
rubl
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
The wondering type
Posts: 23,997
Likes: 9,333
|
Post by rubl on Jan 14, 2019 17:30:18 GMT 7
Those you quote above have paid in full for both their state and private benefits I am one of them. I invested via the private sector as well as compulsory schemes operated by the state in its assorted entities as does any working person(s)in the U K. The incomes now received are my/our rights we paid in full. Now someone living on welfare remits money back to his family is in truth very different from those who have paid their way It's no contest, they are the people who are creating extra demands on the hard working taxpayers. The British State pension is automatically adjusted every year for those living in Britain, the E.U. or countries Britain has an agreement with. Otherwise you'll forgo those yearly adjustments. In a way that's a penalty (or a punishment) for not spending your money at home. I said 'similar', I didn't say 'it's the same'. As for the refugees, I guess currently there are no paragraphs in the laws, regulations concerning income which demand spending such in the country where the money has been provided. I think that from a legal point of view putting restrictions will be difficult and like a road to more State control. Tricky. It could easily lead to double taxation again and that would have effect on people accepting temporary jobs abroad. |
|
siampolee
Detective
Alive alive O
Posts: 14,450
Likes: 9,289
|
Post by siampolee on Jan 14, 2019 18:18:51 GMT 7
I being a U K citizen and a pensioner, private self funded, occupational, and state wise thus am very well aware as to how the system works.
The issue is that those who take all and give nothing are abusing the system.
Now if one was to enter any charity shop in the U K and elsewhere no doubt and if you require an item or items you pay. Walk away with an item or items unpaid for and it's theft. To be pedantic one could apply the same logic tho those refugees referred to in the O P.
|
|
rubl
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
The wondering type
Posts: 23,997
Likes: 9,333
|
Post by rubl on Jan 14, 2019 18:35:09 GMT 7
The issue is complex and no doubt personal circumstances effect how one looks upon this issue. The refugees have been accepted (if only temporary) and given money. No restriction has been put on them at to how they spend that money. Probably only a "need to last a period" with period being a week, or month depending on frequency of payments. Of course the idea is that the money is used as 'living expenses' like housing, clothing, food, limited pocket money. There is no legal pressure put upon the refugees as far as spending money is concerned. There is moral pressure of course and in this I think rightly so. That's not legally binding though. Also one may wonder how many more rules and regulations you want to document as there is already the general complaint of 'the government' red tape. Although the article is about Australia, the red tape is not specific for Australia's government only I'm afraid. It's a worldwide phenomena. With more than seven billion people and reluctance to settle arguments 'forcefully' paperwork seemed a good alternative  |
|
Mosha
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 5,803
Likes: 3,012
|
Post by Mosha on Jan 14, 2019 19:14:18 GMT 7
Those you quote above have paid in full for both their state and private benefits I am one of them. I invested via the private sector as well as compulsory schemes operated by the state in its assorted entities as does any working person(s)in the U K. The incomes now received are my/our rights we paid in full. Now someone living on welfare remits money back to his family is in truth very different from those who have paid their way It's no contest, they are the people who are creating extra demands on the hard working taxpayers. The British State pension is automatically adjusted every year for those living in Britain, the E.U. or countries Britain has an agreement with. Otherwise you'll forgo those yearly adjustments. In a way that's a penalty (or a punishment) for not spending your money at home. I said 'similar', I didn't say 'it's the same'. As for the refugees, I guess currently there are no paragraphs in the laws, regulations concerning income which demand spending such in the country where the money has been provided. I think that from a legal point of view putting restrictions will be difficult and like a road to more State control. Tricky. It could easily lead to double taxation again and that would have effect on people accepting temporary jobs abroad. Actually the EU wanted that automatic rise to include all EU pensioners. Blair vetoed it. |
|
siampolee
Detective
Alive alive O
Posts: 14,450
Likes: 9,289
|
Post by siampolee on Jan 14, 2019 20:26:21 GMT 7
A fine example of a creature that purported to support the men and women in the street. Mind you he has no qualms about improving his lifestyle has he. Fine example of socialism at its best. Whats mine is mine, whats yours is also mine.
|
|
siampolee
Detective
Alive alive O
Posts: 14,450
Likes: 9,289
|
Post by siampolee on Jan 14, 2019 20:29:28 GMT 7
Well the simple most effective answer is that if you have no means of support bugger off back to where you've come from. Money aplenty to pay the people smugglers wasn't there.
|
|
rubl
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
The wondering type
Posts: 23,997
Likes: 9,333
|
Post by rubl on Jan 14, 2019 21:46:18 GMT 7
Well the simple most effective answer is that if you have no means of support bugger off back to where you've come from. Money aplenty to pay the people smugglers wasn't there. The money aplenty is doubtful, probably more like how Thai go work abroad saddling family with debt and enormous interest rates. More effective would be to hunt the smugglers who profit from human misery. |
|
mudcrab
Crazy Mango
Posts: 18
Likes: 18
|
Post by mudcrab on Apr 10, 2019 21:53:27 GMT 7
Those you quote above have paid in full for both their state and private benefits I am one of them. I invested via the private sector as well as compulsory schemes operated by the state in its assorted entities as does any working person(s)in the U K. The incomes now received are my/our rights we paid in full. Now someone living on welfare remits money back to his family is in truth very different from those who have paid their way It's no contest, they are the people who are creating extra demands on the hard working taxpayers. |
|
mudcrab
Crazy Mango
Posts: 18
Likes: 18
|
Post by mudcrab on Apr 10, 2019 22:01:12 GMT 7
I thought this was about Australia not the UK.
The sending home of money has been happening for decades since the Libyans were invited in.
.It's part of the reason for the two year home detention scheme prior to getting portability of pension was put in place.
Anyone who kids themselves that they 'paid'for a pension are kidding themselves. Superannuation is your money. Pensions are being paid for by your kids so go speak. And they can't afford it.
|
|
