Boomers aren't very popular for plenty or reasons, but aged care is flush with cash and pay their staff shit, and treat the ailing as consumables - the quicker they die the quicker they can get another body into their spot and grift more.

[–] TassieTosser@aussie.zone 16 points 1 year ago

All this crap shouldn't even have been privatised in the first place. The recent Royal Commission should've demonstrated that. Essential healthcare shouldn't be left up to for-profit companies.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago

Aged care is expensive to provide. Many or not for profit or religious based. They still don't always have great conditions.

Obviously, some are great.

It's only going to get more and more expensive as we continue to live longer with more and more medicines and treatments required to do so. Not to mention the cost of staff to support more elderly people as the population ages. While staff pay is poor, it's going to become harder to recruit new staff. The aged care facilities are incenvised to run as short staff constantly rather than hire more without more investment.

[+] RoadkillUgly@aussie.zone -8 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Should the wealthy pay more fore everything?

Fancy car? Extra $2 per litre to fill it, extra $500 for a service (you can afford it)

Expensive clothes? Extra 50% tariff on dining out.

High income? 50% loading on electricity and gas, groceries, haircuts etc.

Obvious and obligatory / s

I am not rich by any means (I have a car I pulled from a paddock and fixed, my clothes are from big w and opshops) but I dont begrudge those who have accumulated wealth, other than those who have done it by dodging taxes or by rorting the system.

Maybe instead of stinging the rich to make others rich encourage philanthropy to lift up the least fortunate in society.

[–] jonesy@aussie.zone 17 points 1 year ago

"Perhaps if we give the rich even more money they will be more inclined to share that wealth with those below them, it'll definitely work this time guys"

[–] TassieTosser@aussie.zone 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Personally I believe charity to be an extremely inefficient way of distributing help. You're essentially asking for numerous services with duplicated administration overheads that may even not provide their services equally. A more efficient way of spending money on care would be taxing the wealthy to expand government services.

[–] Majoof@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago

I don't completely disagree with you. I don't think charities in developed nations are an effective use of money for the reasons you described and tax is probably a better mechanism.

But I would encourage you to look up effective altruism and specifically the book "the life you can save" by Peter Singer (perhaps Australia's greatest intellectual export)

[–] TiredSpider 3 points 1 year ago

Don't threaten us with a good time.

[–] billytheid@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

those people aren't the ones we need to be taxing... our corporate tax system is a shambles

[–] keeb420@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

some of those you might be able to make an argument. however being an american it really sucks to see people stripped of their assets when they get older because they cant pay for medical care. and i can easily see the conservatives in australia slowly making it so that "wealthy" just means everyone paying. today it might be a reasonable limit but in 20-40 years inflation will make it so that "reasonable" number is very unreasonable.