The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The centralized welfare state at the crossroads > Comments

The centralized welfare state at the crossroads : Comments

By Philip Mendes, published 22/11/2016

Overall, the progressive critique seems to be rightly questioning why we are spending so much time and money paternalistically monitoring the poor and ensuring they comply with a range of mutual obligation requirements.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
"Perhaps a GMI would be useful in allowing ourselves to distinguish between those on income security who are not able or willing to work and just want to be left alone....".

We can already pick the people who can't work; and what? We continue giving the bludgers who "just want to left alone" money for nothing?
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 22 November 2016 7:58:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's awesome that we take care of poorer people! But it might be better if Christians set up a parallel debt free welfare system option as a way of helping the general economy become a little bit more sound.
Posted by progressive pat, Tuesday, 22 November 2016 9:11:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
At the moment, those with the lowest incomes who are trying to move off welfare, or who are part of the working poor, experience a very high level of risk when trying to change their situation. A GMI might provide a secure enough foundation that people can take risks.

Also, the ongoing changes in the economy, including the trend toward part time work (and not by choice), and also the effects of automation, mean that many people may not be able to piece together a good income, and it probably won't be secure.

People who feel secure often have a more adventurous outlook, whereas those whose existence is precarious often don't take new opportunities because the consequences of them not working out are catastrophic.

The willingness and ability of people to try new things, new jobs, to innovate, and their ability to plan for the future depend largely upon their circumstances.
Posted by Mayan, Tuesday, 22 November 2016 9:19:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Could the good professor be worried that a reduction in the welfare budget could reduce the opportunities of well paid taxpayer funded employment for the graduates of his university department?

I remember a quote some time back "every time a university graduates another social worker, we need to generate 5 more welfare recipients to ensure them a job.

I doubt that anything could be quite as motivating for dole bludgers as a reduction by 50% to the dole payment, after a year, & to 25% after 2 years. With such a system I doubt we would need back packers to pick our fruit & vegetables.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 22 November 2016 10:08:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Getting the able bodied off welfare not too difficult! It's called growing the economy!

And our welfare budget could be halved if we just stopped all forms of welfare for the rich!

That said, we need a means tested social wage and affordable if other things are done! Like simply preventing current tax avoidance and rorts! This is where we bleed billions! Yet spend billions chasing welfare recipients and millions!

The poor must not be allowed to rort the system, but we turn a completely blind eye, when the super wealthy and corporations do it!

One of our largest miners i.e., exports thousands of tons of iron ore from here, yet sends the paperwork to Singapore, where the cash payments are remitted to! Where the company tax rate is just 15%!

And given even sharper practise! Company tax in real terms varies between 1-4%?

We could and should demand some work in return for the dole! How about conveyancing at $60.00 an hour? Ten hours of that per week and they could be completely self supporting?

Some plumbing jobs can be learned in minutes! Like changing a tap or washer or two! Then charge $60.00 an hour for the work?

There has to be a couple of dozen job descriptions that can be compartmentalized and learned inside a day, like changing a black box or a mother board? But particularly if a program walks you through the nuts and bolts applications?

We confront these problems be cause our tickerless "leaders" refuse to do anything real or other than more of the same!!

Cheap energy, cooperative capitalism has yet to be thought of, let alone tried!

So punish the hapless poor, if only to create an impression of doing something?

Get real!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 22 November 2016 3:09:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A massive percentage of the social welfare budget is spent on private contractors to interview welfare recipients on a weekly or monthly basis to determine their employability and 'willingness to work'. The extent of this percentage is diligently kept from the public. I have been trying to find it out for years, but the statistical wall is impenetrable. From all this secrecy, one can only assume it's huge.

These private contractors are paid handsomely, not only to fill out their giggle sheets, but to also advise welfare recipients to attend taxpayer-funded courses on how to write a CV or basic bookkkeeping or how to start a business (with absolutely no funds to do so - indeed, without even being able to put food on their table).

A private social welfare contractor of my acquaintance receives $1500 per report for a total of about 2 hours work, while the welfare recipient of her report has to go home and try to survive on $130 per week.

This is a government moneymaking rort that would be classed as criminal if it were more widely known. In a sane and sensible world, the welfare budget would be spent on actual benefits to those who actually need it, not furthering the profits of 'human resources' contracters.
Posted by Killarney, Thursday, 24 November 2016 5:56:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy