Who exactly is Rudd referring to in his constant use of the term "working families"?

Question

Does it include you?

Yesterday, on talk-back radio 2UE with Steve Price, this was the very point people were discussing... and it seemed everyone felt excluded. In fact they explained how they were discriminated by the government's policies in favour of those "working families".

So, if you're a single guy renting and earning an honest wage... are you included?

What about the L*****n couple living together... renting and earning an honest day's keep... are they included?

How about the solicitor earning $90,000 for a 12 hour day who goes home to his wife looking after the kids and struggles to pay the mortgage... are they one of the "working families" Labor keeps referring to?

How about the average farmer... struggling because of years of drought... asset rich but cash poor... is he, his wife and 2.7 kids one of the "working families"?

(NB - I borrowed this question from a poster on a different forum, because I found it an interesting topic of discussion - what do you

Answer 1

"Working families" is a noise that comes out of the mouth of a politician.  It is a cynical bit of spin that sounds as though it means something, but disappears in a puff of flatulence when you attempt to analyse it.

Answer 2

oh! I thought it meant child labour.

LOL

Answer 3

I take your point and agree that your examples are not covered by the "working families" term, but nor should they be.

What he's saying is that "working families" are the working people on middle and lower incomes with kids and that they're struggling more than people in other sectors of the community - and I agree with him. He's acknowledging that they have been ignored to a great extent by previous governments which have concentrated on the welfare sector (I exclude age pensioners from this broad statement) and have done nothing at all about redirecting tax benefits from high income earners to the people who need them most. In the past, every time there has been a tax reduction, high income earners have benefitted more in dollar terms than lower income earners because they benefit by a percentage of their income - they should only get the same dollar amount as the benefit to an average wage earner.

Australia needs families to have children. Without children there is no future for any of us, but they are expensive to educate, feed, clothe and otherwise care for. The single guy and the L*****n couple may not be well off, but they're a long way in front of a family with its far higher expenses. The solicitor on 90k may think he's badly off, but again, it's nowhere near as difficult for his family as it is for lower income families.  The farmer at least has his (usually inherited) farm and with good management, could be more self sufficient than someone living in rented accomodation or on a small suburban house block. When the good years come again, will he be expected to pay back his benefits? Farmers can already average their earnings over more than one year, "working families" can't.

My husband and I are both high(ish) income earners, but we voted Labor and fully support Rudd's efforts to help working families even if we end up worse off ourselves. I sincerely hope too, that aged pensioners don't miss out yet again - they re-define the term "struggling". Looking forward to tonight's budget.

EDIT: Re your additional details...

Um, er, that's a bit of a redefinition of the term and it's a pity he ducked the question. I still think he's genuinely trying to help the sectors of the economy that have been left out in past years, but perhaps he should be using a broader term like "working low to middle income people especially families" or something. Your point is accepted.

Answer 4

He is referring to people  with children

Answer 5

ice cream

Answer 6

Kevin 07's spin doctors and speech writers created a number of empty slogans. Working families is just one of the empty slogans. Naturally the broad section of the society consists of families where one or both adult parents work, have children and pay off a mortgage. Those families are the middle class, who pay taxes and have only a few deductions. Those families do not need slogans, they need a fair go and a few support measures that they get value for the tax money. The last Coalition government offered 30% rebate on private health insurance, tax incentives, baby bonus, low interest rates, low inflation, low unemployment. Kevin 07's incompetent management will erode all those benefits and the working families will be very disappointed with Labor. Well, it was a gullable decision to vote Labor, specially now that we know that Swan will fight inflation with high unemployment. And that is not the interest of the working families. That is just Labor's economic lunacy! Ironically the union movement still supports Labor, without taking in to account that public service jobs are going and working families are hit hard with high interst rates, high inflation, high unemployment and means testing of the benefits.