In a wealthy country like Australia, poverty should be a policy choice – not a natural condition. Yet here we are, in 2025, with government income support payments that sit well below the poverty line, and tax concessions that overwhelmingly benefit the already wealthy.
So here’s a simple idea: Instead of giving money to the rich, why not give it to the poor? The country can afford it – we just choose not to.
Let’s start with the basics. The current JobSeeker rate is around $390 a week. According to the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS), the poverty line for a single adult – after housing costs – is about $489 a week. That leaves people on JobSeeker $100 short every week, and struggling to afford rent, food, utilities, transport, or medications. Pensioners aren’t faring much better. For many older Australians, retirement means navigating poverty with dignity – or at least trying to.
These are not people who’ve failed. They’re people failed by the system.
Meanwhile, billions of dollars in public money flow – quietly and without fuss – to those who need it the least. Tax breaks on superannuation contributions, negative gearing, and the capital gains tax discount largely benefit high-income earners and wealthy investors. According to the Grattan Institute, the top 20% of income earners receive nearly half the benefits from super tax concessions. Many of these tax breaks are politically untouchable, despite costing the budget far more than it would take to raise JobSeeker and pensions to livable levels.
The logic is upside down. People living below the poverty line are told the country can’t afford to help them. But those with investment properties, trust funds, and seven-figure retirement accounts are propped up with billions in tax concessions and loopholes. It’s a trickle-down fantasy that has never delivered – but it continues to shape policy.
And yet, the economics of compassion makes perfect sense. Economists from institutions as conservative as the International Monetary Fund have shown that giving money to the poor does more to stimulate the economy than cutting taxes for the rich. Low-income earners spend their money locally and immediately – on food, rent, school supplies, petrol. That money flows back into the economy, supporting small businesses and creating jobs. In contrast, tax breaks for the wealthy often end up in offshore accounts or real estate bubbles.
Australia is not a country in crisis – it is a country in denial. We have the capacity to ensure that no one lives in poverty, but we lack the political will. Raising income support to the poverty line would not bankrupt the country. In fact, it would save money in health, housing, and criminal justice – not to mention restore dignity to hundreds of thousands of people living on the margins.
It’s time to reject the myth of scarcity when it comes to supporting the poor – especially when there’s such abundance for the rich.
The choice is clear. We can keep funnelling public money into the pockets of those who already have more than enough. Or we can rebalance the system – not just for fairness, but for economic stability and social cohesion.
Because in the end, the question isn’t whether we can afford to give more to the poor.
It’s why we still choose not to.
Also by Michael Taylor:
$100 a Week Boost for Australia’s Poorest: A Game-Changer Funded by the Wealthy
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
Michael, a recent ABC news story pointed out that 91 people, individuals who earned more than $1.000,000 dollars in the 2023-24 financial year managed through the tax deductions, supporting various charities paid NO INCOME TAX!
I have a relative who worked for one of the big multinational accounting firms had to rework a tax return for a client, seeking to find an additional $10.00 deduction. The client was prepared to pay what ever the hourly rate was to find that $10.00, just to avoid paying what would probably have amounted to a saving of a few dollars in tax.
The system which allows deductions such as supporting ‘charities’ such as a building project at prestigious private schools or other favoured ‘charities’ is to my mind immoral, or at least unethical in that it tacks funds away from those who need it most, ensuring that those with the most keep the most.
It’s disgusting, Bert.
When working I had no issue with paying income tax knowing that a proportion would be used in programs to help the needy.
Income tax should be at source – income. NO DEDUCTIONS for anyone.
Hello Albo, Charming Jim..when are you going to kick off the neo liberal bullshit? We need guts , balls and brains, not repetitive garbage that reinforces the current dead end status quo.Third rate politicians that have no idea, and no vision about where we are going.WAKE THE FUCK UP.
Have a nice day.
The more Albanese appears, the worse it gets.
NEXT.
Well said Michael. We have a Labor government now with an unassailable majority which should allow it to do all the Labor things some previous Labor governments have done. Time for Chalmers to show what he learned as a junior to Wayne Swan, a Treasurer with guts.
A related issue is financial literacy or numeracy, or lack of via dumbed down RW MSM talking points, when Australians obsess over house prices, but ignore stagnation in values, then complain about immigrants, population growth, taxes, budgets and outgoings.
Not only denying society and ignoring one’s own dependency on public services, but a symptom of Austrian Chicago School or ‘segregation economics’ of Atlas Koch Network (see IPA).
“Give it to the poor? Give it to the poor?” squeals Greedy F. Cat. “It belongs to us.”
“Yes, why not help them out.”
“But…but, they’ll just spend it!” cries F. Cat as he almost hyperventilates in shock as he drags on his Joe Hockey Super I Don’t Give a Shit Cigar,
“Think about it for a few seconds. What will they do with the money?”
“They’ll waste it on cigarettes and alcohol and pokies and food and…” F. Cat almost orgasms in his trousers as he suddenly realises. “We own all the companies and businesses that deal with all the poor people. Ah, but what about…”
“Don’t worry, we have all our tax accountants and lawyers working on ways to minimise tax and gouge even more money from the government.”
“In that case have the remainder of my cigar minion.”
“Gee, thanks.”
Why not create a fairer just economy that eradicates the poor. Allowing all to be productive members of society.
Some points discussed by Andrew Smith and one or two, dumbing down and attendant hocus-pocus- this was a GOOD comment!
@ Michael Taylor: You have identified the three easiest ”tax breaks for the rich” that can be remedied for the benefit of the poverty classes.
NEGATIVE GEARING must be removed in line with the Shorten Reforms to cap the continuing market price rise by reducing the number of potential investment buyers, and so bring the market back into reach of the 20+s generations.
CAPITAL GAINS TAX (CGT) should be returned to pre-Howard levels to encourage long term ownership rather than opportunity speculation.
SUPERANNUATION EARNINGS ON BALANCES OVER $3 MILLION is equitable because those individuals have no need for any tax offsets
FREE MONEY FOR DIVIDENDS must be removed ASAP.
All these reforms should reasonably be done on the grandfather principle, so that fresh investments are under new tax laws and established investments are protected.
Then in Year 2 of the ALBANESE LABOR GOVERNMENT the free for nothing handouts to foreign owned multinational corporations can be reviewed and wound down. Things like petroleum research expenses when the national plan is to become fossil fuel free.
Why even the $368 BILLION for Scummo’s USUKA sub debacle and post-politics job opportunity could even be re-routed to funding social housing that successive state & feral Parliaments have religiously ignored during the past 12 years of COALition misgovernment.
Oops!! I just remembered!! The Canadians trialled the Universal Basic Income (UBI) strategy for five years before the Conservative government abolished funding and the detailed results were stock-piled waiting for analysis.
UBI is paying individuals to be unemployed in the main workforce but receiving sufficient government support that they can continue with other activities creating a usually small income flow.
The original study was funded through the Canadian Health Department to see if the number of stress related doctor & hospital visits could be reduced.
Long story short ….. the demand for doctor & hospital services was significantly reduced, so much so that the whole UBI programme SAVED MORE THAN IT COST!!