Dear R0bert,

In answer to your questions:

1) It depends: In the general case, societies are not obliged to provide welfare and if they do, then they have every right to impose conditions.

However, the existing welfare system in our particular society should not be looked at as a free gift, but rather as compensation, and should therefore be unconditional. The compensation is for the fact that current society imposes such laws that make it impossible for individuals and groups to live in nature without the use of money. Anyone who tries to live without using money will be harassed and incarcerated for trespassing and breaking many similar laws and by-laws.

As society denies us the freedom to subsist without money, it is only proper that it compensates us with the only means of subsistence which remains legal - money.

This also means that we ALL are entitled to this "welfare" - not just the disabled, aged, unemployed, etc. We all are!

2) The solution is to replace the existing welfare system with a negative income tax. This way, it is nobody's business whether others prefer to work or to be intoxicated. Those who prefer to be intoxicated will only punish themselves: if that's their cup-of-tea, then they will be poor and survive only on the subsistence-level negative-income-tax.

3) As many mentioned here, the price of following up would be a sharp reduction in personal and property safety. Welfare, both in its existing form and in the form of a negative-income-tax, is one of the best investments for our tax-money!

Rehctub here.

In response to the many posts, firstly, it's not my idea, I simply support it.

Of cause one way to at least minimize the problem, would be to stop the cash. But people seem to hate that idea as well.

So I guess we had best just accept that a portion of our taxes will be wasted this way.

Gypsy, I too am sorry to hear of your situation, I wish you well and hope your situation improves.

One has to wonder why our leaders continue to hold their heads in the sand, telling us we are in great shape, with almost full employment, implying that anyone who wants a job, simply has to ask. But we in the real world know that's simply not the case, but hey, why let the truth get in the way of a good story, I say.

Another stat I would like to see is just what jobs are being created. We have 1000's loosing full time work, yet under employment is a real problem.

Finally, I am not perfect, far from it, but I don't have any problems being asked to provide a sample for drug alcohol testing.

While I accept most are honest, it's like RBT, I have no problem gettimg pulled over, as I know the offenders are being removed from the roads.

But I ask those opposed to remember, in return for receiving benefits, the least recipients can do in return is be fit and ready for work.

That means alcohol and drug free, at least 5 days of the week (alcohol that is)

Seriously, is that too much to ask.

Oh FFS.

Oh yes, let's 'protect' 'our' money by forcing anyone who is addicted to drugs and out of work to find alternative sources of income.

Great plan genius, I hope you have good security screens.

Posted by Bugsy, Wednesday, 29 August 2012 7:17:18 AM

LOL....I couldnt of said it better myself. I only got to Bugsy's post and near fell off my chair. This would have to be the most stupidest hair brained ideas I,ve ever heard.

If Centrelink wants to do all of Australia a great favour, give them more money to quicken up the processes, if you catch my drift:) For the normal people on Centrelink benefits, please give them an increase of $120.00 per week....so I dont have to rub it into the Greedy/Rich/Government faces. The fact that these Australians(your own country people) are 40% below the average wage and the boat people get better treatment WTF!...well talk about backwards and stupid.

Australia is the lucky country?...Yeah right! Lucky for who?....Obviously not for white Australians with arrows on their PJ"s ect.

(and overpopulation in this country wont be a problem, yeah right again)

Yes some Australians are a waste of time conserning DRUGS but so are alot of other races as well.

Here's an idea.....Stop the boats, keep the looser's cashed up and stoned, and we can all sleep at nights with ease.

And you thought solving this problem was going to hard:)

Planet:)

Australia is a signatory to the Human Rights and one of the regulations is no one can be victimized.

As I see it our Governments and Welfare systems create situations whereas people are victimized by different regulations for different recipients.

An example which I relate to is I am a recipient of unemployment benefits and receive $497.50 a fortnight. Most of my benefits are paid to my mortgage and bills being electricity, telephone, council rates and water rates all of which I have to pay off in installments.
I have to make sure that I keep enough money for fares to go to my allocated job search provider and any interviews for positions of employment, to enable this I have to skip buying enough food to last the 2 weeks so towards the end of the fortnight often I don't eat for up to 4 days.

If I was a renter on welfare I would get rental assistance money on top of the unemployment benefits but because I have a mortgage I can't get the extra assistance.

At present I only pay the interest on my mortgage which takes $350 each fortnight and Telstra and Lumo Energy take $50 each a fortnight so as you can see I'm not left with much.

The bank would dearly love to foreclose on my mortgage and take my home evicting me into the street, which they will do if I miss a payment.

I want to work and earn an income again and by the above comment you will notice I have nothing money wise to spend on leisure items.
There would be many other welfare recipients experiencing the same problems as I.
Gyps

Gypsy not sure if you know about them but you could try http://olderworkers.com.au/

Your plight is one that's played on my mind for some time especially with the current cuts in Qld combined with CSA's concept of a capacity to earn.

" one of the regulations is no one can be victimized."

I think it's the very nature of government to victimise by both providi9ng unequal help and by applying unequal responsibility.

Almost every thing the government does (regardless of the political brand) involves unequal treatment of people.

I'm rather tired of that, I seem to have missed most of the special helps along the way yet keep paying for them for others and often others who are far better off financially than I am.

I'm tired of being taxed harder (and paying extra child support) when I take on extra hours because I need more money.

The downside of government trying to help some is that almost invariably comes at the expense of others often without any concern for their circumstances.

R0bert

While I accept much of what most posters say, the underlying issue is that being supported, while unemployed simply means, being actively seeking work and, being effected by illegal drugs does not fit the criteria

Perhaps in order to keep you all happy, we should change the definition of unemployment benefits.

Robert, I hear you loud and clear, the whole child support system, in my view, is run by man hating women, he'll bent on revenge.

Luckily, I don't have that problem, but I have many mates and associates who do.

Anyway, this is not the appropriate thread for this topic, but I hear you.