Some political commentators warned of the risk to the federal government's budget when the surplus promise was dropped.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
They warned that demands on the public purse (read taxpayer) would emerge.
John Passant (Jan 7) and others who oppose tightening access to welfare payments and/or raising expectations of those in receipt of benefits seem not to understand the notion of "moral hazard".
Similarly, in referring to the $728 million saved from Labor's budget, they fail to understand that taxpayers (including low-paid taxpayers) would eventually have had to foot the bill.
If there was an easy way to distinguish between income support recipients who are genuinely using the system as intended - as a temporary safety net - and those who seem to have developed a long-term or even inter-generational dependence, the government might not have needed to rely on such blunt measures.
If John Passant seriously believes that further redistribution and/or taxpayer funded government job creation programs are the solution, then a quick visit to Spain, Greece or Portugal might be in order.
PAUL PHYLAND
Wendouree