Di Natale’s free money idea loses award for lunacy to Anglicare

Richard Di Natale’s free money for all idiocy could go much further — just ask the ungrateful troglodytes at Anglicare.

Australian Greens leader Richard Di Natale’s economic idiocy is nothing compared to Anglicare’s.

Greens leader Richard Di Natale has just given the politically ­ignorant and/or the dimwitted another reason to vote for him.

At the Press Club this week he announced the delicious concept of free money, falling from the sky, into everyone’s hands.

A Universal Basic Income, paid by “a government which looks after its citizens”, would be “a bold move towards equality”.

Apparently, the amount to be given would be between $20,000 and $40,000 a year, to everyone, without means testing.

In addition, everyone would have “access to an adequate level of income, as well as access to ­universal social services, health, education and housing”.

Various people have piled on to the Greens, calculating the cost of the idea and denouncing it as irresponsible.

But here is where I think the Greens have gone wrong — their plan is uninspiring, and unambitious. If there is to be free money, falling from the sky, then why be so stingy about the amount? Surely, we should get at least $300,000 a year, each.

Further, why restrict the free goodies to social services, education and housing? It all sounds a little pedestrian, and colourless.

On top of the basic necessities, Di Natale should really organise to give people everything else their heart desires, and a little ­imagination wouldn’t hurt.

How about, for example, a free baby-blue Bentley continental (with a driver) and unlimited free beauty treatments, boozy lunches at swank restaurants, designer handbags and six-star holidays?

Di Natale’s speech was called “The trickle down hoax and the need for government to step in”. Trickle-down economics is an economic model that doesn’t ­actually exist, and no one in this country has ever advocated for it, but nevertheless some activists on the left love raging against it — the political equivalent of screaming at a lamp post.

Take, for example, Anglicare. They are a charity, and as such, tax exempt. Also their staff enjoy outrageously favourable tax treatments on their salary packages, which most would describe as complete rorts.

Nevertheless, some troglodytes within the Anglicare group don’t care about appearing to be rank hypocrites and ungrateful for all the money we give them. They recently commissioned a report, paid for by us, of course, and released it last week.

No one in the media denounced it, and this should be of concern, because silence in the face of sheer idiocy could indicate acceptance and the drongos ­involved could be inspired to continue their activities.

“The cost of privilege” was written by Per Capita, for Anglicare. Per Capita says they are an organisation that is “fighting inequality in Australia”.

The problem with Australia, according to Emma Dawson and Warwick Smith (the authors), is that the poorest people in our ­society, those on welfare, are not in fact the biggest recipients of public funds. The richest actually are.

According to the report, “the bottom 20 per cent of Australians by wealth collectively receive just $6.1 billion in such benefits while the top 20 per cent receive 10 times as much at over $68bn.”

The report’s premise is that those on welfare are financially supporting the wealth creators, and just to be sure this proposition was made quite clear ­Anglicare tweeted the report with the hashtag: #therichcostmore.

On ABC TV last Monday, ­Anglicare’s Kasy Chambers said that in our society wealth is “not trickling down, it’s gushing up”.

According to Per Capital and Anglicare, people who work and pay tax are not supporting those on welfare, it is in fact the other way around.

So to all of you who are working and/or paying tax, then shame on you, because you are actually living high on the hog at the expense of the neediest, ­­­and you have done this by taking ­­­­­­their wealth, which has gushed up to you, even though you don’t ­deserve it.

This allegation is proven beyond doubt in the report, with case studies of four fake families, whose circumstances are outlined in an easy to read table.

Kevin and Andrea are both parents on Newstart, and receive $42,103.13 in welfare, per year, tax free. They are compared to Tim and Michelle, parents and small business owners, who work to earn a taxed income of $208,421 per year.

After “tax and transfer” benefits, Tim and Michelle, the lazy rotters, cost society a whopping $99,708 a year. On the other hand, Kevin and Andrea only cost us $42,103.13. So there is the undeniable proof, in black and white — #therichcostmore.

The methodology of the calculations takes some explaining, and, even then, perhaps might only be understood after smoking marijuana.

Nevertheless, the report is only a dozen odd pages, and can be found online, so while you are sitting around doing nothing other than robbing the poor of their hard earned wealth, the least you can do is find it and read it through.

The report also says if the government “is serious about balancing the budget while retaining a fair and just society, the place to cut government spending is on the cost of subsidising the ­accumulation of wealth by rich Australians”.

There is no evidence the government is serious about balancing the budget, but if they were one place to cut spending would be to Anglicare, perhaps they could even tax them. Anglicare are involved in political activism, and clearly have money floating around their hallways.

With this report, Anglicare ­appears ungrateful to the community that supports them, and worse — they appear to be resentful and deluded to go along with it.

When it comes to Anglicare, we should not donate to, support or tolerate their brand of aggrieved lunacy, because otherwise their voice might become influential, especially after the next election.