Yuyutsu,

I understand your logic but disagree. Too many times idle hands create problems for their families, neighbours and the wider community.

I would prefer a system in which the government has no role in supporting the unemployed and the unemployed are instead required to rely on the good will of families, neighbours and the wider community (or else get a job). This would ensure that even though a person may be without work they still have to cultivate and maintain a significant amount of good will and social capital.

Of course with the tax level as it is the government is actively destroying job opportunities which is not a very bright activity for them to be engaged in.

Regards,
Terje.

Yuyutsu

I believe in the inherent goodness in people - having worked for many years in the welfare sector I met many people from out and out criminals to drug addicts to disabled to immigrants, refugees and more. In all that time I was only threatened twice (circumstances not relevant here) the overwhelming majority of people simply wanted to do the right thing, some simply didn't know how (background so distorted from the reality most of us live with).

Anyway I agree with your proposal - why hurt the majority because of the very few who don't want to work. A basic frugal income is civilised and in this wealthy country very affordable. Decent and fair working conditions are also affordable - we need to put a cap on exorbitant executive salaries ($59 Million is absurd and an insult to all other workers).

Yuyutsu - I enjoy the reasonable tenor of all your posts - keep up the excellent work.

Yuyutsu
your posts are indeed refreshing.. you often have a very different POV, continually enriching our experience here.

* most lazy people, whose laziness is just a cover for a physical weakness without formal medical diagnosis, or who do not wish to admit such weaknesses. (They should get diagnosed)

* those wanting to work - but not under the conditions currently offered in the job-market.(They are spoilt :) Not the governments problem if jobs are there and they don't want them)

* those wishing to work without pressure. (huh ? life 'IS' pressure)

* those wishing to study informally in order to become professional and start their own business. (informally is too difficult to responsibly monitor by Gov but I recommend the NEIS scheme if still going. I did it... gov funding for 12 months after formal training in business)

* those preferring to take care of their grandchildren/nephews/nieces.
(Totally agree on this one, as long as the caring is "needed" But payment is family responsibility not Government)

* those wishing to devote their time to charitable and/or religious causes and/or just to help others without concern for financial reward. (Religious causes should be self funded)

* those wishing to spend their life in prayer and meditation. (must weigh up whether they can support such a life, not government responsibility)

* those who prefer to spend their time here in the forum, contributing good ideas for a better society.

Now THAT last one I agree with :) but then...thats because I enjoy it so much. Seriously, that also should be self funded. My business makes much less due to the time I spend here :) The most I hope from Government is that someone will notice our various points and act on them.

Cheers

Boaz,

I am afraid that 350 words cannot allow me to fully cover each case, so guidelines and principles to remember are:

1. this plan primarily benefits the working, their employers and part-time workers, while material benefits to the non-employed are minor.

2. the "government" means the collective representation of society: the body we elected to fulfil our dreams and aspirations.

3. society is morally responsible for its past and continued actions: with the majority pursuing a particular lifestyle (western-mainstream), doing so because it promises a standard of living that is "more than frugal", and since legislation is geared toward that lifestyle, practically prohibiting others (eg. such lifestyles that do not require money) or otherwise rendering them unfeasible, it should at least compensate individuals for being bound by those laws - especially those who otherwise would be happy with a frugal standard of living. I believe that this will be as obvious to future generations as it is obvious for us today that "slavery is not on".

More specifically:

* obtaining a formal medical diagnosis (and being categorized, even stigmatised, thereby) is a lifestyle choice: not fair to impose on others! Also, current medicine may not recognize the condition [correctly].

* those not willing to work in present conditions, support others who want to work in reasonable conditions.

* life should be glorious - not a pressure! those who are happy with the little they have, should not be pressured by the "MORE" culture.

* government controlling what one studies is dangerous: they will only subsidise what they want people to believe and practice.

* you are right that government should not support religious causes: but it is different than supporting individuals who wish to pursue a religious lifestyle [frugally]. Also, besides religion, what about other charitable works?

* those wishing to spend their life in prayer and meditation will bless society rather than curse it.

* By spending time in this forum, I also earn less, and with my plan implemented, I also will end with less in my pocket - so I cannot be suspect of "personal interests".

Keeping a biologically inferior non-Celtic-Anglos in a generational pool of unemployment securing a sound number of ready-to-work-for-near-nothing slaves,hight financial gains and simply jobs for the privileged is a usual Australian story attracting no word in this forum so far.

Recently, as this pool is being made ready to accommodate more AUSTRALIANS, some fuss occurs.

Every folk worth their government.

Rebecca,good on you-AWAS will be a real headache in the future for working Australians . i shudder when i hear about the secrecy provisions that can be written into them .
We should all be contacting our school curriculum makers to insist school leavers at least have a grasp of the implications of AWAS they might have to sign for their first job, [ if that is what the boss wants] ! If it needs to be a separate subject then so be it .