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

Mate, you're the one who seems to be all hung up on definitions, I couldn't give a fig. Don't blame your own moral outrage at people who don't fit a particular definition of eligibility on us.

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

rehctub sorry but it's dominating my life so much that the ties don't need to be real strong to make it relevant for me. A bit of desperation to try and get those not impacted by the extremes of the system to understand just how much it hurts.

If you think the bit of your taxes that goes to drug effected people on welfare hurts it's nothing compared to how personal it gets when CSA gets it's teeth into you to hand over large amounts of money to an ex who is already well off and to add insult to injury not seeing any sign that the "child" benefits from that at all.

R0bert

Robert I have seen many friends go through it, and almost separated with my wife over it, as she simply does not agree with me and gets so emotional that she threatens to leave.

While many here on OLO talk about equality, why is it then that a child from a non custodial parent on say 100K, is provided with more than one on far less.

In my view it costs X amount to raise a child, not a percentage of ones income, and that in my view is where the system is failing.

Furthermore, I am a firm believer that all child support should be paid to a government agency, and either the custodian parent can claim their ligit expenses back through the likes of Medicare (with receipts), or, be issued with a special debit card which restricts certain items.

Either way, the system stinks amd makes it near on impossible for many to start again,and as usual, the kids are stuck in the middle.

Gypsy, you are obviously a worthy recipient of welfare and as such should have nothing to worry about, should this system be adopted.

I wish you well.

BTW, what is your profession. The reason I ask it that the mines employ many older folk, as they are generally reliable and very appreciative of their jobs.

Perhaps that's an option.

rechtub:"Gypsy, you are obviously a worthy recipient of welfare and as such should have nothing to worry about, should this system be adopted."

But if you could please make a special trip into our offices and wee into this cup, we would be grateful. Unfortunately we cannot compensate you for your travel at this time. By the way, god help you if your sample gets accidentally mixed up with the person just behind you in the 3 hour queue. Have a nice day :)

Of course you could always work for the mines, which would mean that if you wish to keep your house, you would have to rent it out to strangers while you move yourself to where their offices or worksites that employ older folk are. This won't be an imposition will it? It's just that your benefits state that you should be willing and ready to work. Anywhere.

Whether anyone thinks a welfare recipient "deserves" it or not, what about their kids?

We can't simply say that because you spend too much of this welfare money on alcohol, illicit drugs or cigarettes, you can't have it anymore.

It would be better to use food , clothing and grocery vouchers instead of providing all cash payments. .
Imagine the horrendous planning required for this sort of welfare though?

I really don't know what the answers are...

Gypsy, I won't be dragged into the old 'poor old me ' argument, but the fact is, welfare is a hand up, not a hand out.

BTW, i didnt tell you to head off to the mines, it was merely a suggestion. Furthermore, most mining compainies have huge staff numbers based in CBD's around the country.

Mining is not about the old pick and shovel these days.

Good luck to you though.

Suz, the solution in my view is very simple, as instead of issuing vouchers, a special debit card would do the trick.

Yo see vouchers can be cashed, eg, a $20 voucher can be given to a retailer in return for say $10-15 cash, whereas a debit card can only be used to buy goods and services and, restricted items, such as drugs (legal and illegal) and gambling can't be bought, nor can cash be withdrawn.

Unfortunately it won't happen, as governments know that a fair portion of their welfare payments, come back to them in the form of huge taxes. Gambling, tabacco alcohol

So if you take away the taxes that are redirected back in to welfare, there is a large hole that has to be plugged from somewhere. Like a dog chasing it's tail I am afraid.

But, as with most welfare abuse, it's always the kids who miss out.