5 ms·

I know someone who works for housing. Rent is generally calculated as 25% of a person's income - regardless of what their income is. For someone on $550/fn New

by lysp 8y ago

I know someone who works for housing. Rent is generally calculated as 25% of a person's income - regardless of what their income is. For someone on $550/fn New-Start, rent is calculated at approx $68.75 per week. There are often instances where families in public housing properties are regularly taking overseas holidays despite having quite extreme unpaid rent debts. Sometimes from low thousands to 10-15 thousand of unpaid rent/debt. They simply stop paying rent. And to rack up that amount of debt when you're paying so little in rent, it's often for quite some time that it remains unpaid. Often the only real option is to start eviction proceedings through the xCAT tribunals, where the tribunal member will usually give families many multiples of chances and time to pay. When they finally realise they are finally going to actually be evicted, they will often show up to the housing offices with the entire amount of unpaid rent. So I agree with this policy and think it will often work to recover debt. There are quite a few people who play the system and I think this will help combat that. But I only think it should be implemented for cases with high amounts of debt and as long as some safeguards are added (exemption for victims of family violence for example).

Jedi72 8y ago
Every step on the staircase to hell seems logical and justified. There are ways to prevent this e.g. jail time for perpetrators, that dont involve blanket removal of citizens rights.
throwawayuy 8y ago
It will likely be effective. That’s not the point I was making. I’m pointing out that in most western democracies there would be legal challenges and a massive outcry if such a ban was instituted (there were/are no-fly lists in the US but those are ostensibly aimed at preventing terrorism, they aren’t meant as administrative punishment for unrelated offences). The few complaints I’ve seen about the policy are that tax cheats and multinationals aren’t subject to the same ban, not anything from a civil liberties perspective about the wrongness of such a policy per se. On the flip side, it’s possible that locking them up would be politically unpalatable, so this a better alternative..but again that would give the concept of “rule of law” short shrift. Australians are more accepting of government authority than people in other western especially “Anglosphere” democracies.
pas 8y ago
Are these repeat offenders? Do they have to pay the cost of proceedings? Late fees? Is the system as a whole in a deficit? Is it because these tricksters?

by lysp 8y ago

Jedi72 8y ago

Every step on the staircase to hell seems logical and justified. There are ways to prevent this e.g. jail time for perpetrators, that dont involve blanket removal of citizens rights.

throwawayuy 8y ago

It will likely be effective. That’s not the point I was making. I’m pointing out that in most western democracies there would be legal challenges and a massive outcry if such a ban was instituted (there were/are no-fly lists in the US but those are ostensibly aimed at preventing terrorism, they aren’t meant as administrative punishment for unrelated offences). The few complaints I’ve seen about the policy are that tax cheats and multinationals aren’t subject to the same ban, not anything from a civil liberties perspective about the wrongness of such a policy per se. On the flip side, it’s possible that locking them up would be politically unpalatable, so this a better alternative..but again that would give the concept of “rule of law” short shrift. Australians are more accepting of government authority than people in other western especially “Anglosphere” democracies.

pas 8y ago

Are these repeat offenders? Do they have to pay the cost of proceedings? Late fees? Is the system as a whole in a deficit? Is it because these tricksters?