Welfare Card

So when you said, "I was looking forward to a well reasoned, intellectual debate" you didn't mean that, you actually meant you were not looking for a debate. Have I got that right?

 

Yep, my apologies. I was more interested in people's thoughts and more of a discussion rather than debate, therefore was meant to say discussion. Obviously, my thoughts were to see whether it was a plausible policy and possible impacts positive and negative. I think my OP was a demonstration of this and would have thought that would have set the tone. Certainly not interested racist and thoughtless spin around the actual topic!

 

I don't over rich people, I admire more rich than I despise, I do hate the way the government favour the rich, so do some of them. A multimillionaire friend of mine often says he should pay more so they don't make cuts to people like my dad.So he uses all his time and money to compensate for what the government seem to think is unnecessary, compassion for those who built our country. As for conservatives, isn't that a blanket, a name that covers a group of similar ideologies just as liberal does etc.

 

How is the Welfare Card supposed to work. For instance we have EBT cards for food in place of food stamps. People used to sell the food stamps for pennies on the dollar to buy other stuff, often drugs and now do the same thing with EBT cards. They don't really solve anything.

 

Welfare cards, and these scum-bag politicians keep telling us Communist China and Russia are control freaks towards their citizens.

 

I would say the system works the same as food stamps. This proposal is an attempt to ensure parents etc are spending their money on the necessities of life including proper schooling for their children rather than squandering it on alcohol, drugs and gambling etc. As you've mentioned there are obvious ways of circumventing the system. The idea sounds good but far from bullet proof from your experience.

 

We see your just waiting for your masters to give you an opinion, Sorry about that. We all thought you might have had one before you started your little thread...

 

The forum can and should be about discussions mostly it doesn't have to be about bigoted opinions. I haven't got a position but it's obvious you've got one, right or wrong. We can all make our minds from various discussions but honestly don't subscribe to many of your views!

 

Don't worry your masters have been busy but they will get to you...eventually...

 

What are you on dude, seriously?

 

Well, there you have it. Can't engage with you any more dude, your unusual manner should be self concerning and an indication you may need help. Chow!

 

I know your masters have not arrived yet... but don't worry they have not forgotten you they are just trying to convince the more thinking of your crew to agree with them...

 

I think compulsory income management applied to all welfare recipients will demean and stigmatise many people in exchange for little to no benefit. It's wrong to assume that this level of intervention or control is necessary for everyone.

 

Who or what groups do you think it is necessary for? They are public funds.

 

Well, there are certainly some people who could benefit from income management. However, it should be on an opt in/opt out basis as compulsory income management is unnecessary and too broad.

 

The answer; with careful consideration and taking into account my own period of dependence on Centerlink payments, is yes. It is unfortunate that those that are truly managing their funds with forethought and are allocating them in areas that perhaps the government would not see as conventional usage for a Centerlink recipient, but nevertheless sustaining themselves; however it is always the case that the minority is lumped with the careless actions of the majority in Governmental reform "A few kids blow off their hands with firecrackers, nobody gets them". We used to have a dependable system of morality in years past, but as time went on and the 20th century came to a close, so did the time of pragmatism. The defensible are those approaching retirement age, but not able to find employment because of just that fact, also the truly disabled and single mothers, among a few other categories (and of course the "Racist" branding will appear) but Aboriginals are capable of far better than a 50% unemployment rate, and saying they haven't been afforded the opportunity is bull. That goes for the traditional white dole bludger as well, poor environment and upbringing aren't to be considered contributing factors, nor is it a cultural requirement of Aboriginals to sit around and demand respect and a decent living for no work. The government shouldn't be approving of people avoiding responsibility and slacking to the farthest limit they can achieve. Sometimes sweeping reform is necessary, and this would be one of those times.

 

Welcome to the forum Katchy, new blood is always welcome.

I would say that the majority are truly managing their funds with forethought etc. Like the kids that blew off their fingers, it is the majority that is lumped in with the minority. We like to clump people and things up into bundles and put a label on it, it makes things easier for us to understand.

Most of the unemployed are unemployed because there is no work. There has been less work than there are workers for a long time now. Yes there are vacancies and yes people are getting jobs everyday ... but that doesn't mean that everyone can get a job. There are just more people than jobs.

There are many factors in play. First, the majority of jobs go to people changing jobs, so those jobs have no to little affect on the unemployment. Secondly, not all unemployed are counted, and the counting method is pretty suss. Thirdly, business and government are constantly looking for ways to increase the production and decrease the employees, half of the businesses business is helping business unemploy people.

Welfare cards or worse singling out the unemployed as being the problem is avoiding the problem itself.

The problem is a greedy society, we are working longer hours, taking work home, skipping holidays. We want more, we don't want a Holden we want an Audi, we don't want a 4 bedroom brick veneer, we want a two story, 6 bedroom, on suit, pool, games room etc. We don't want to retire on a pension, we want to collect millions in super, buy a boat, an RV or travel the world.

Companies don't want to make a hundred million dollars profit every year, they want to make 100 million last year, 120 million this year, 144 million the year after, 172 million the following one etc.

So factoring all this, the unemployed have been created by business and will increase as long as business want profits to increase. So for some unemployment becomes a generational thing, they become unemployable.

So I think you should get my drift. When we have 600, 000 job vacancies for the 600, 000 unemployed then we can start jumping on them, but until we can find the 300, 000 jobs for those genuinely unemployed and looking for work, if some can manage happily on the pitiful amount they receive good on them. They are our problem, we created the monster, we have to fix the problem first.

 

Thanks for the welcome DominorVobis. Referencing my own employment, which is a god-awful excuse for the word, It being permanent staff as a floor buffer at a mall (Try to go to the pub and chat to a girl with that card up your sleeve - works wonders), I've always been content paying bills and staying, economically, towards south of the equator, but bettering my own self in the meantime (Reading, writing, intellectual reflection). To be content, is what I guess I'm getting at.

And yes, being unemployed shouldn't stigmatize any one individual, as I've known a few people that are indeed worthy, in this country of ours, to receive benefit as work is clearly beyond theirs to attain. Working hard just to get the very ability to work hard - this, as I said, being very difficult or nigh on impossible for those that are in their 50's and later, are disabled with a truly incapacitating illness, or in an array of minority situations. But their are thousands upon thousands that just abuse the situation, abuse the lottery ticket they've been granted in this country, and I've seen it, over and over again, with my own eyes. Now it's an issue if you're on your own and are willing to just waste your check away on your vices, but with others dependent on you... maybe there's wiggle room for reform. And I can guarantee, if you apply yourself as an individual, you can find work.

You can't always find a job that you like, or one that you specifically don't hate, but this isn't America, I know for a fact that there are jobs out there if you look. Of course there are a million peripheral issues that come into play, but in a broad sense, it's motivational. I'm not going to say stigmatize them, but the idea that even a small percentage can abandon their family's well-being so they can have another round at the pokies or carve into a case of beer on a Tuesday... we need to think. If you were to ask me in a broad sense what political reform needed to take place this year, this issue would be near-last and those creating the problems; the elite class, and the politicians themselves, would be in the firing line.

I'm not a right-wing "I'm not working so they... rararar my tax dollars.... rararar" kind of guy, I just see alot of wasted potential in the funds we allocate to particular communities, and wonder if a stern but logical step would need to be taken. Something to be done that would not place any unnecessary financial burden or take away any allocated funds, but rather fixate the alignment of them.

 

You would think circumstances account for something in terms of people's attitude to gaining employment including background and environment. Some people are intrinsically equipped to push through their circumstances with subtle support systems that allow them to reach beyond what is expected of them. There are obviously many hurdles that individuals have to get through to help them move beyond entrenched challenging circumstances. These include factors surrounding confidence, such as learning abilities, emotional issues, community settings and support mechanisms etc. In my opinion, depression is such a deep soul destroying disease that leaves many people feeling helpless and inadequate. Drug use becomes a crutch etc etc. In saying all this I think the issues surrounding unemployment and welfare are much deeper than what we can pin point from a one dimensional view, mindful that all circumstances and people are different. Anyway, I don't think the people who we see as outright bludgers are happy in their circumstances, I am sure they wish they were made differently and with different circumstances. While they are kept sustained by our contribution the less inclined they will be to commit crime and cause much more expensive issues for the nation. Anyway, for me the jury is still out in terms of my thoughts about whether a welfare card is broadly introduced. I don't think the feeling of indignation is legitimate enough because many probably feel this already due to their circumstances and those that require the extra support, say one bread winner and children may just have to accept this as a new norm. They're my thoughts anyway!

 

Good points, and I, more than most people do know the situation some can find themselves in, as I said, I was for some time receiving Ceterlink benefits, and yes, my affliction (It was a temporary disability) left me at some stages horribly depressed, so I can conceded that as a very valid point and approach. But, disability aside, I've known (past tense there) three people, that thought they would live that way for some years to come, were not in any way disadvantaged or incapable, and just didn't see the effort as necessary (as I saw it, at least).

They saw it as an easy card out, and, much like drug use, used it as a crutch. I hardly see drug use as an non-treatable disability, and there isn't any way in hell that centerlink should be giving benefits to current drug users - money isn't the answer there, and yet there are untold cases of just that, and it isn't helping anybody, it just sustains the vicious cycle. With that last point I sunk my brow - now there is no way, that throwing money at communities to try to encourage them to stop committing crimes is in any way acceptable, that's a horrible solution. They can't hold anybody ransom for crimes they are yet to commit! Reducing theft and petty crime by handing out money is akin to giving a Heroin addict Methadone and not stopping... although I'm yet to come up with any solutions to that problem - I can hardly see it as the appropriate solution.

 

Keeping people sustained is important to ensuring security and safety for all. It's a sacrifice we have to make. All I'm saying is that welfare is important for these reasons. Rules around how these are used are obviously up for debate.

What do you think would be the likely outcome of not having welfare for unemployed people? Would this force a majority of these people into work?