Australia would have a much higher homeless and disadvantage rate if we eradicated social security nets. They are in place to ensure people don't starve should they find themselves out of work for a period of time and allows for training or time to find another job. Do we really want to go down the path of a third world economy? Even Americans who generally loathe the idea of safety nets have some form of unemployment benefit in place.

Rorting by Wall Street and the finance sector costs us a lot more as a society but as the latest 4 Corners program about the GFC revealed, not one financier/banker/trader (other than some small fry) has been charged or sent to jail for fraudulent activity.

Even if we accept there are a minority on the dole, who for whatever reason, find this largesse so powerfully attractive they want to loll about smoking dope while the rest of us work, the figures are a minority compared to the bailouts and subsidies offered to the corporate sector. Rorting in the social security system is mainly by people who participate in the cash economy and who receive benefits fraudulently and pay no tax. This is already a criminal offence and is a separate issue to the concept of a safety net.

However I agree that programs which help people learn new skills or gain experience are useful to ensure people are not at risk of long term unemployment. There also has to be an awareness that many people who are on unemployment for some time are also disadvantaged by illness and some form of disability which makes things more difficult. There is a fine line now between what constitutes a disability, who can and should work and who can't. Difficult questions with lots of fluff thrown up by the politicians about equal oppportunities for the disabled but very little real action by governments or business to ensure disabled people have the same opportunities.

Dear chrisgaff1000

“Not that many years ago society had an answer to 'layabout' problems. It was called the "Vagrancy Act" and simply meant that if you could work and chose not to you went to prison for 3 months.”
“and when they get out of prison, then what?

Not that many years ago!....Gezzzzz, why not just have them all shot, oh dear. The amount of dinosaurs posting now days with ideas that worked well in some smaller population, and probably on some other planet as well:) Wind back the population slowly, and watch today’s problems get slowly better and eventually disappear.

Indy, the worlds growth is the governments management, and if they fail, well….just have a look around the world and pick any country you like……and what do you see?
Lets cut the crap and do it like the old days and just invade some pain in the arse country like north Korea and those useless male problems like in the first world wars and so on will be solved.

See! You just have to think like a dinosaur:)…….and they too when extinct by theory of bigger is better:)

PLANET3

>>I personally know many who prefer not to seek work, sit at home in their taxpayer subsidized house or flat, smoking Dope, cigarettes and drinking booze or spirits.<<

Then you need to go and report them to Centrelink immediately - you could get in a lot of trouble if you don't. You're obliged to inform Centrelink if you know that somebody is receiving a Centrelink benefit to which they're not entitled - and obviously sitting around all day doing drugs does not meet eligibility criteria for the Newstart allowance:

http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/centrelink/newstart-allowance/eligibility-for-newstart-allowance

Cheers,

Tony

Dear Individual,

<<We are not allowed to dock them because we would be branded a certain despicable word.>>

That's terrible... Shoosh, Tony may overhear me and tell the authorities! (PS. how many years in Siberia do I get if I became aware that my mother used a page out of Lenin's book as toilet-paper and failed to report her to the authorities)?

I have no problem with people who stay in bed all day, or for that matter out in the sun or in the public library reading books: so long as they are happy to live only off that meagre allowance, that's fine. If my tax-money goes into helping them maintaining this low-profile, low-maintenance, easy-going, non-violent, non-intrusive, peaceful lifestyle, then compared with other government expenditure it's relatively one of the best places my money goes into.

We all know that in the end nobody in Australia will ever go really hungry - if one did, they would soon break into my house, so better this way!
(it's actually cheaper than fortifying all doors and windows with iron bars and sophisticated locks, not to mention changing those tiled roofs into concrete and hiring armed guards to patrol the street - as they do in those countries where people do go really hungry)

However, if they do drugs and alcohol and all that, one wonders where they got the money to buy it!

<<Where I live the Government stipulates that we employ a certain quota of certain people.>>

!ylkciuq ecalp taht evael uoy taht tsegguS I

"""
Rawmustard, capitalism has caused unemployment to rise with poverty and homelessness at a all new record level right around the world, and you know it.
"""

Sorry, PLANET3. What you think is capitalism is far from the truth and you know that also :~)

Now if you want to talk about crony capitalism, corporatism, welfare for the rich and adding government sponsored barriers of entry to the little guy, I'm all ears.

One simple fact that we operate under a federal reserve banking system that picks winners and losers, is not capitalism!

And by the way, all those countries you mentioned. They're all hopelessly failing!

"""
Rawmustard, the latest brain wave of thought by some, is to add more people just to keep the cash-register,s ringing, however this plan will just fold in on its self with more unemployed as the by-product.
"""

Not that I'm in favour of unending growth. But under a true free market, capitalist system that was fare for all, that wouldn't be the case.

The problem with these arguments/discussions, is that they always get broken down to their most basic rendition. I know I'm really guilty of that crime myself :~) But they're so much more complicated than that.

History has shown us that socialism doesn't work. And to look at history to get an idea of how capitalism plays out. The closest we've had to a true capitalist, free market society is the American experiment. But even then it still wasn't a true capitalist, free market system and now is imploding under a mixture of crony capitalism, corporatism and socialism. But for a time there in its early and mid history, it was a very successful, free society with very few not willing to engage.

cont..

From my opinion, it all goes right back to childhood when you were a kid just learning to ride your first bike. You can't just look at a kid that's 18+ years old and doesn't want to work and call him a bludger as most these days seem to do. We didn't have too many of them back in my day and that wasn't too long ago :~) So what's changed, why are a lot of young kids not wanting to engage?

I feel the system is geared against a lot of them now and what we're seeing is the blow back from a myriad of early policies and rules that were implemented and continue to be expanded to this day. Policies that stifle young minds and turn them against the system. Policies that take away the rewards some need to continue playing the game. Policies That prevent kids from engaging.

In our endeavor to protect people from their own stupidity, and to grant corporations special privileges, we're creating a rigged system that benefits a minority. This has consequences and kids failing to engage is one of them. It has nothing to do with capitalism.

Can we help all of them? No. But we could reduce a lot of them and get them to kick in. But the big wigs don't want that. It's more beneficial to them to have a few sponge of the system and let the rest pick up the tab.