What The Outrage At Q&A’s Duncan Says About Perceptions Of Welfare

Duncan Storrar, an audience member from Monday night’s Q&A, has become something of rallying point for arguments about welfare and tax breaks, after he told Assistant Treasurer Kelly O’Dwyer that he was flat broke and got nothing from the budget, and she cheerfully replied that instead cafés were getting $6000 toasters with tax rebates.
Everyone with a heart and also possibly a history of being super skint got behind Duncan, who really drove home the point that the tax cuts we’re giving rich people, who wouldn’t even notice, could mean the world to someone less fortunate. Everyone without a heart was a complete dick about it.

The Australian took a swing at him this morning, wielding the very specific phrase “net tax” at him like it instantly discredited his entire argument. But, as Duncan argued on the show, even if he’s not paying income tax (he literally does not earn enough money to do so), he’s still paying tax every time he shops, thanks to GST and additional taxes on things like petrol and alcohol.
As the Australian Council Of Social Services point out, low income earners end up paying almost as much tax compared to their income anyway:

What’s the point in The Australian running that, you reckon? Does it refute that literally all of the tax cuts were for higher income earners and that low income earners in Australia are struggling? Fuck no it doesn’t. It had one very aim: rile up people that think “welfare” is a dirty word.
They even gave a breakdown of his income and living arrangements, what point is that meant to illustrate? All it did was make it clearer that he lives on very little money, which seems exactly his point.

At some point in your life you will probably be jobless or lacking enough hours in the day to work full-time and study. If you manage to go through your entire life without ever drawing from the shallow well that is Centrelink, you are either a superhuman or you’ve got wealthy folks.

It exists as a social service for two reasons: the first being that we’re pretty well off as a country, and we can support those that can’t necessarily support themselves, and secondly because if we don’t support people while they’re in between jobs they will quite possibly not survive long enough to get another one.
But for some reason people are still outraged at the idea that we support these “freeloaders”, we consciously know that welfare and the income tax threshold exist for a reason but we treat it like a dirty secret. It’s super easy for tabloid media to cast people as villains just by pointing out the fact that they receive Government money to live due to their circumstances.
People get defensive about their hard-earned taxpayer dollars being used to support someone else’s lifestyle (which, frankly, if you’re on welfare, is not going to be a great lifestyle) , while at the same time Australia is dropping $50 billion to build some submarines AND THEY WON’T EVEN LET US GO FOR RIDES IN THEM.
The welfare system exists because people need it, and I think, in the bigger picture, people genuinely understand that, but for some reason when given a specific example it incenses them.
It doesn’t matter if Duncan paid no income tax, if a man with a disability is struggling to get by we should probably take the hit and let our favourite brunch place slog it with a $50 toaster instead.
Photo: The Australian.

More Stuff From PEDESTRIAN.TV