For over a month now, people with a disability have been unable to use NDIS funding for seeking sex worker services. Lived-experience advocates say it's a step backward.
Making people feel good is an actual outcome. In fact, it's the only actual outcome.
Who cares about quarterly profits, and budget savings, and a strong economy, and anything else, if it doesn't make people feel good? Our laws and our economy should be designed with the intention of having a society of people who are happy. If the system isn't designed to increase happiness, then everything it accomplishes is pointless.
Also acknowledges the fact that those at the bottom of this awful economic hierarchy miss out on some of the things that "regular" people take for granted. You know, the basic enjoyments that make life bearable so we don't off ourselves. Everyone should consider themselves one accident away from being destitute if they don't have family wealth. Then consider what your life could be like in that scenario. A car crash happens, and then you could spend the rest of your life never touching skin with another person.
Everyone else who pays taxes towards a program like the NDIS is giving up a little of their own quality of life.
Hookers shouldn’t be getting NDIS funds paid to them when there are still people going without and this is part of balancing the budget to ensure the NDIS is sustainable.
Just tax billionaires more. It's not that hard. Australia doesn't have a budget problem, it has a not taxing billionaires problem. There's no point trying to save money by taking shit away from disabled poor people. That's pinching pennies while burning hundred bills.
So you're celebrating a pointless penny pinching law legislating against people who already had their need validated in a court of law... Because that's what other people think?
At an annual running cost of $35.8 billion in 2022-23, the federal government will spend more on the NDIS this financial year than Medicare ($30.8 billion), aged care ($27.7 billion), and support for state government hospitals ($27.3 billion).
Penny pinching on one of the least productive, most expensive government expenses! Crazy! I have no idea why they are so focused on it.
Okay now give the statistic for how much the hookers cost the taxpayer. You seem very confident that stopping the hookers will balance the budget, so you must have the figures to back your position up.
likewise, since you’re so certain it’s penny pinching feel free to post your numbers
i support all attempts to reduce the cost of this massively overbloated free money train
to quote the greens
Senator Jordon Steele-John, the Australian Greens spokesperson for Disability Rights and Services, has claimed that the reforms will result in the removal of crucial disability services, stating that ‘the Labor government is choosing to remove $14.4 billion in funding from the NDIS that will lead to disabled people not getting the support they need when they need it’.
Im not sure how $14.4 billion of tax payer money is penny pinching
Yeah, those disabled people should quit asking for a handout! Those quadriplegics need to get up off their comfy wheelchairs and work an honest day's labour in a coal mine!
You don't apply this to aged care. You don't apply this to military funding. You don't apply this to schooling - i've no kids and am menopausal so why should i give a shit about giving up parts of myyyyy quality of life for your kids???
How exactly, does aged care benefit society in a way that providing the most basic of human comforts to people on NDIS does not? I'd love to hear your logic here.
Let's scrape all social benefits that have no benefit for every single person capitalists, things were better when industrialists worked kids starting age 7 60h week. If they want to go to school they have to earn it.
I'm sorry that you have to pay 100% of your income
Hmmm looks like that’s an argument I never made, let’s check the definition of a straw man argument.
A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent
Nothing about the straw man fallacy excludes hyperbole.
Under examples we can see
Exaggerating (sometimes grossly) an opponent's argument, then attacking this exaggerated version.
Oh you thought I was talking about the very real possibility of someone wanting to commit suicide due to disability…. Tsk tsk.
As I said right from the outset, if there is no science to say that paying for hookers is a more effective use of money than other support methods then it shouldn’t be paid for by public funds.
You're literally complaining how a tiny fraction of your tax that ends up in the NDIS might pay for fulfill the sexual needs of someone who otherwise wouldn't have them fulfilled is lowering your quality of life.
You really don't have the grounds to fling accusations of logical fallacies around here.