I have said it for years and will continue t say it, unless some can change my opinion tha being, STOP THE CASH!

Also, the time has come for all but the extreme cases, to work for their dole, or go without.

Free lunches MUST be a thing of the past.

Belly there is another aspect of this seldom touched on. That's the part where we are held responsible for the costs of running society, of funding the basics that those who deliberately minimise their taxable income don't contribute to.

If a wage earner does some overtime to help pay expenses he or she gets assumed to be even more responsible for the cost of running society and are taxed accordingly. Someone who chooses to keep their earned income to a minimum avoids that responsibility.

The tough bit in this is realistic ways of separating the genuinely needy from the lazy. Whatever rules or reviews we will put in place are likely to be distorted away from the intent.

R0bert

The only fair welfare system is where we ALL receive equal welfare, unconditionally.

This also cuts under all fraud as there is no incentive not to work: you got your dole in any case, then why not work and earn some more?

Yes, it is possible. It's called negative income-tax.

I find the dollar-numbers on the links below too small, probably not up-to-date with inflation, but the principle is good in many ways.

http://ldp.org.au/policies/1164-taxation
http://ldp.org.au/policies/1167-welfare

Lexi I see nothing in my thoughts and posted words that offer evidence I think that way.
I stand tall and firm, against the stated thoughts of Rechtub Hasbeen, and some others here.
Let me make this clear, I am ALP FOREVER, BUT WAITING, SOME TIMES IMPATIENTLY, FOR MY PARTY TO CATCH UP.
My youth was far worse than just hunger.
It was twisted and torn by true poverty.
Just being so poor,in 1955 was far worse than today, Social welfare was far different, my dad,a man who worked himself to death at age 54 to feed us, had to humble himself at the local police station, and it was that humbling, to feed us
A loving man he went without food for days he worked menial jobs for very little.
Lexi, we got an education in working, some at age 8, to feed ourselves.
How could I not feel contempt for those saying food stamps are the answer?
I am repulsed by the statements from well fed never been hungry folk.
BUT TOO lets remember, open our eyes to the birth of welfare,to feed the true poor, not sustain a life of crime for some, not keep folk remote from the rest of us.
IF we cut the fraud, stop protecting true crime in the name of true victims we can pay more.
Australia need not leave everything as it is,we need not fear change.
We can give a job of last resort instead of dole, we can end paying the true bludgers, Lexi they exist!
If we consider new paths, not a useless non productive job one of worth to workers and taxpayer.
The charge Labor and Liberals are one is idiotic ranting, but we did forget to put fences around Social Security in fact we let the true needy down by not stopping fraud.

Belly, no decent person would deny welfare to the genuine needy.

The problem is, how do we determine who the genuine needy are.

What I do know is that these GN people don't waste their welfare, so, if all welfare was quarantined, it would stop the waste, while at the same time, not effect the GN as they are not the ones wasting it on grog,cigs and gambling.

So, what's the problem with quarantining all welfare and managing the waste, as it will ensure that the limited resources would benefit more of the genuine needy, as the billions currently wasted would be better spent than is currently the case.

A system like this (linked to a debit card) would also allow recipients to bettknow a person who at the time of the first $20,000 first home owners grant, had a personal wealth (held in trusts) in excess of 40$ million, yet was still able to secure the grant to buy his first house in his own name.

In my view he was entitled to the grant, but he was hardly needy.
er manage their dollars, as there could also be a monthly statement issued, that provides an accurate account of where this money has been spent.

So in essense, it would be a budget aid for all welfare recipients, large or small, as they could see where their dollars go and identify potential savings in certain areas, that may be better spent elsewhere.

I know I am like a broken record, but if you stop the cash, you address the waste, and that is the real problem here, is how to better provide for the genuine needy, from a limited resourse.

I throw my lot in with Belly and Lexi on this one.
About once a fortnight I get one of those circulating emails with wild stories about these people who supposedly live the high life on the dole.
I think very few people subject themselves willingly to poverty, or willingly subject themselves to the humiliation of what government departments put them through. Not intentionally but simply in getting the job done.
I can't remember who said it, but I put great value on a quote that goes something like, "The true test of how civilised a society is, is how it treats the weakest among it."
We in Australia are among the wealthiest per capita in the world.
I think we can afford to give a decent leg up to those who need it.
And if I have to pay a little more tax to cover it, well it's a helluva lot better use of the money than some things our taxes get spent on.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au