Online petition to stop welfare management

n3wb on 03/05/2015 - 18:06
Last edited 04/05/2015 - 14:31 by 1 other user

Moved to Forum: Original Link

Online petition to stop welfare management in Australia, please sign and help, we need all the signatures we can get.
The government wants to manage our welfare and introduce these new cashless cards, which will stop us buying online, and restricting us to certain brick and mortar stores only, we wont be able to buy from ebay, or any of the stores online posted on ozbargain, it will disadvantage us greatly!

We wont even be able to buy from op shops, second hand stores, garage sales, or from gumtree..

Compulsory Welfare Management is an outrageous attack on the rights of welfare recipients and will have a damaging effect on small businesses.

"Seven years ago the government launched an Intervention in the NT which has tried to establish punishment and control as the policy framework for dealing with social disadvantage. The government's own evaluation shows overwhelming feelings of discrimination and shame. Youth suicide rates have increased 160% and reported rates of self-harm are up more than fivefold," Mr Gibson concluded.

Financial

Related Stores

change.org
change.org

Comments

    • FutureTech on 03/05/2015 - 18:14
      +278

      Since the government gives you money out of the blue, they are most certainly entitled to decide what must and must not the money be spend on. If you got a problem with this, go earn your own money.

        • belongsinforums on 03/05/2015 - 20:19
          +16

          The rate for homeless males is actually decreasing. Check ABS

        • sigh on 03/05/2015 - 20:30
          +42

          I agree with you, to a point. Many of those selfish people are on welfare too and feel entitled to it. I have lived and worked in the northern suburbs of adelaide and have delt with these sorts of people all my working life. I have sympathy and respect for those doing the right thing and have often gone out of my way to help them including paying for fuel (used to work at a servo) for pensioners. But those that clearly make no effort to find employment, even offering jobs to a few, that feel that my tax dollars should be their living and they are entitled to more and should get it their whole life, i have no sympathy for them. I have even had families come in and watched grandparents pay for fuel for family member because 'they're struggling' only to have their leaching welfare bludging family members come back and spend more then the fuel they got on smokes and junk food from a service station, not the place to shop if you're 'struggling'. I worked there and rarely ever bought anything even with staff discount, i always took a packed lunch.

        • Tech5 on 03/05/2015 - 23:32
          +6

          There are 5 unemployed people for every job? So you are saying there are 5 unemployed people for every employed person? So unemployment rate is 83%? What ever you're on, I'd like some.

        • knackers on 03/05/2015 - 23:50
          +10

          @zhuang281: He meant 5 unemployed people per available job

        • [Deactivated] on 04/05/2015 - 09:42

          How do you define per job advertised?

          Clearly people are completing their studies every month and the unemployment rate has been dropping recently. Are these people miraculously disappearing from australia?

          If your statistics are true and accurate it means that jobs are being created that are not advertised, doesn't mean that they are not available or waiting to be filled.

          Also, would you go so far as to say, "have less kids until everybody is employed?".

          Anyway, its good news to me if I, on average have to compete with less than 11 people for a job.

        • qweenDalilahHur on 04/05/2015 - 10:50
          +33

          I think its a good idea. The government is trying to reduce centrelink money being wasted on gambling and alcohol.

          I always notice the homeless in the city are poor but always drunk. They cant afford to eat but can afford to buy expensive alcohol.

        • stargalaxy on 04/05/2015 - 13:08
          +11

          @qweenDalilahHur:
          Have to agree Thursday is peak day for the pokies joint, I think it is good that some control on how the funds are spend is good so that the recipients spend on necessary things and not on gambling.

        • seanbaussie on 04/05/2015 - 21:25
          +6

          @stargalaxy: I think you might be confusing the welfare system from 20 years ago with today's. There is no 'regular day' for welfare payments anymore: they get paid based upon the day you claimed, not a specific day of the week.
          So if Thursday is peak day for the pokies you can't suggest that it has anything to do with welfare payments.

        • stargalaxy on 04/05/2015 - 23:33
          +1

          @seanbsydney:
          Not sure about the change, but I also notice on Thursday, car park at shopping mall is a lot fuller during lunch time, there must be something special about Thursday.

        • wako on 05/05/2015 - 04:16

          @stargalaxy:

          Late night shopping

        • nikey2k27 on 05/05/2015 - 10:24
          -2

          @sigh: Teach people how used money save is whole another problem. you servo they could still used there basic card on food and fuel. it your job tell no basic card not for smokes.

        • spackbace on 05/05/2015 - 10:27
          +5

          @nikey2k27:

          What??!

        • nikey2k27 on 05/05/2015 - 10:33
          +1

          @Spackbace: talk about them spent their money at servo. some people are real dumb real hard to teach them that better to spend money food at woolworths. IF you had basic card system in place at servo it be your job tell them NO smokes on basic card. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-31/welfare-recipients-ski…

        • DarwinBoy on 05/05/2015 - 12:25
          +1

          @seanbsydney: pension day is still Thursdays for a lot Of the oldies. You may be able to change it these days but a lot don't.

        • sigh on 05/05/2015 - 13:13
          +2

          @nikey2k27: never had them use a 'basics card' at the servo but 'social worker' is not part of the job description neither is dietician. They're told quite clearly where they can spend it when they get the card, which acts like eftpos, not gift vouchers like many assume, and will be rejected if its used at an unapproved store.
          These people often hide the card from the cashier until its too late for the cashier to stop the transaction, how often do you expressly tell the cashier your method of payment and display your card to them before paying, if they want it they'll get it, don't blame the cashier.

        • BartholemewH on 05/05/2015 - 18:26

          @seanbsydney:
          So the welfare recipients from 20 years + ago are still Thursday? Stargalaxy's post still makes sense to me.

        • nikey2k27 on 06/05/2015 - 15:34

          @sigh: i am not say blame cashier system is get better but still your job cashier to tell them no. I went to IGA in alice springs. they had to line one basic card one other customers.

        • sigh on 06/05/2015 - 21:07

          @nikey2k27: yeah its only been trialled in other parts of the country, i only saw a couple in time its been around in adelaide so hardly knew anything about it let alone been notified to keep an eye out for it. Retailers in northern suburdbs haven't been given any info, the rsesponsibility is on the card owner at the mment during the trial, no longer work in retail however

        • lnq on 11/05/2015 - 20:53

          @sigh:
          you see only one side of the issues. the ppl who spent are the one who contribute to this (profanity) enconomy.

        • SlickMick on 04/05/2015 - 10:13
          +79

          A tax return is a refund of MY money that was over taxed. Very different.

        • mooboy on 04/05/2015 - 15:40
          +22

          @This Guy:
          I don't think a tax return is what you think it is. It is exactly as SlickMick says.

        • Devils Advocate on 05/05/2015 - 00:18
          +5

          @This Guy:

          They are the most basic "strategies" there are. If the people you know don't know about them they should be going to an accountant. If they choose not to then that's their ignorance costing them and they don't get my sympathy.

          Also, it's not "legal avoidance". The purpose of deductions/offsets is to ensure that tax is only paid on income that is earnt after taking into account expenses incurred earning said income. It is a fair system that everyone is using (or should be at least). Claiming deductions isn't "dodging" anything.

        • This Guy on 05/05/2015 - 01:01
          -5

          @Devils Advocate:

          If that was true then luxury cars would be excluded from salary sacrifice.

        • Chrotzo on 05/05/2015 - 15:38
          +1

          @This Guy: LOL! maybe they should teach about tax refund at school.

        • Chrotzo on 05/05/2015 - 17:51
          +5

          @This Guy: Do you know about the luxury car threshold and fringe benefit tax?

        • BartholemewH on 05/05/2015 - 18:29
          +2

          @krismas:
          Let alone the GST limit and the depreciation limit for your employer. No ones dodging anything by buying luxury cars for business I assure you.

        • cktftw on 06/05/2015 - 21:20
          +2

          @This Guy Obviously you wouldnt know the difference, you probably haven't paid a cent before in tax?

        • burningrage on 07/05/2015 - 19:54

          @This Guy:

          The most ridiculous thing I ever heard.

        • tooslow8888 on 08/05/2015 - 12:31

          You shouldn't be posting if you don't understand how the tax system works, and how personal income tax is levied.

        • This Guy on 09/05/2015 - 03:46

          @krismas:

          Please don't get me wrong. It's great that you are in a position that you don't consider a 60k car a luxury car.

          'I can' get a brand new A4 S tronic quattro for $58k retail. It is no S Class, but I consider it a luxury car compared to a top of the line Liberty for 10k less.

        • Chrotzo on 09/05/2015 - 14:29
          +1

          @This Guy: accidentally clicked vote instead of reply. FYI I drive a mazda 3 that i can barely afford. was just trying to say that the people receiving help should be wise in spending it and not complaint too much. while most of us are paying around 1/3 of our hard earned money on tax and we are still struggling to pay mortgage.

        • This Guy on 10/05/2015 - 17:02

          @krismas:

          You can click on 'votes' then on the minus next to your name to remove an upvote.

          I work mate. Just because I see things differently to you does not mean I am unemployed.

          Yes it sucks to be taxed a third of your income, but on the bright side your earning over $150k. I'd assume well over considering you seem to know what your doing.

          I hope the latest rate cut gave you some breathing room on your mortgage.

      • anthonyaaa on 05/05/2015 - 02:26
        +31

        http://www.themercury.com.au/news/politics/card-bid-to-stop-…

        “You could use it for anything, anywhere, except for ­alcohol and the pokies. And because cash would be limited, it would restrict the purchase of drugs.’’

        The Federal Government is pressing ahead with the plan, but is insisting on allowing welfare recipients a portion of their payment in cash.

        WOW…. Card would pay for food… electricity…bills things that you needed to survive… just like any debit card…

        even event cinemas !!… But not your local Ice drug dealer or for booze like liquorland or local pubs…

        WTF ARE YOU WHINGING ABOUT !!! DEBIT CARD FOR ANYTHING EXCEPT LIQUORLAND AND DRUG DEALERS WHAT IS THE ISSUE??

        • nikey2k27 on 05/05/2015 - 10:27
          -3

          It very different it work for people drug problem very well. but cost gov 8,000 per customer.

        • anthonyaaa on 05/05/2015 - 15:40
          +3

          @nikey2k27: you make no sense..

        • nikey2k27 on 05/05/2015 - 19:51

          @anthonyaaa: It total different and work only dose work people with a drug problem and other problem but it dose cost gov 8,000 per customer for 12,000 payment.

        • phoenixx on 06/05/2015 - 06:57
          +6

          @nikey2k27: what?

        • cktftw on 09/05/2015 - 18:14

          @nikey2k27: You really need to go back to school mate

        • anthonyaaa on 10/05/2015 - 15:08

          Please please stop using google translator to type whatever foreign language your trying to translate… Please get a family member or neighbor or someone who at least has completed an Australian primary school education to formulate your words…

          (P.s I apologize if you have already completed an Australian primary school education but currently suffer some kind of a mental disability…)

        • 2ndeffort on 05/05/2015 - 14:07
          +21

          Difference is that if you get money from work that is money you have earned and is yours to do with as you please.
          If you get money from Centrelink that is money the rest of us have all chipped in to help you out whilst you are in need. For some of us that means going without ourselves to help others that need it more and almost everyone is happy to do this. That is money that some of us have worked to earn but have not been able to use ourselves because we gave it up to the government to help out the nation.

          Few things upset people more than giving up ourselves to help others in need and then seeing those others essentially wasting what we have sacrificed. If you spend it badly it does make a difference because that is money that could otherwise have gone to building a school, fixing a road or maybe helping out somebody else that would use it better. This is not Monopoly money that the government prints when they need more, this is real money given up by somebody or some organisation. Do not see this money as an 'entitlement', see it as a 'safety net' that a generous country collects and happily shares to help out the less fortunate members of our community.

          I agree there is a matter of dignity where people have to be treated as adults and respected to look after their lives without being stood over but we all know there are some out there that will push the limits, no matter where the limits are. if anybody knows a better way please put it up.

        • pneumatic on 05/05/2015 - 17:23
          -7

          That is money that some of us have worked to earn but have not been able to use ourselves because we gave it up to the government to help out the nation.

          The welfare system doesn't exist out of the kindness of your heart, it exists because it would cost you more if it didn't exist, and possibly because you want it there for yourself.

          If you spend it badly it does make a difference because that is money that could otherwise have gone to building a school, fixing a road or maybe helping out somebody else that would use it better.

          The same could be said of the ultra rich vs the working class. But nobody is telling the ultra rich how entitled they are to their money. A person who inherits a fortune and lives off investments without lifting a finger is considered just as entitled to their money as a working class person. Why should it be any different for a welfare recipient?

        • laughingwithu on 05/05/2015 - 19:12
          +5

          @pneumatic:
          The point being made is that the welfare system does not exist to give people money to purchase non-essentials like drugs and alcohol, it is their to ensure that those people are caught in a safety net and provided for until they are able to get back on their own two feet.

          The government is "entitled" to dictate how the money they have collected in taxes is used particularly where the use of said money may be used for purposes contrary to the objects of a welfare system.

          Also the difference is that the welfare recipient is being paid by government (which represents the people) for a specific purpose, whereas the examples given are either due to a gift from a private individual or is the result of a contract with a company and some luck.

        • Dan_ on 05/05/2015 - 19:15
          +4

          If you get your money from Centrelink, you are entitled to that money as well.

          That's what they're trying to change you twit.

          @pneumatic:

          The same could be said of the ultra rich vs the working class. But nobody is telling the ultra rich how entitled they are to their money.

          Yes, and once the change comes into effect, the working class are no longer entitled to money but are instead entitled to assistance with living expenses. Which is the way it should be.

        • Ughhh on 05/05/2015 - 19:27
          +7

          If a regular person asked you for $2 for a bus ticket home because he said had no money on hand, would you be pissed off if you found out that he ended up spending that $2 on a bag of candy or a coke?
          You willingly gave the $2 in goodwill and in hope that it would get this guy safely home. But, hey, you gave him the $2, so he's entitled to that money and how he wants to spend it now right?

        • pneumatic on 05/05/2015 - 22:29
          -3

          the welfare system does not exist to give people money to purchase non-essentials like drugs and alcohol,it is their to ensure that those people are caught in a safety net

          No it's there because it would be more expensive if it wasn't. There is literally no aspect of empathy or "how people should spend money" driving welfare law.

        • pneumatic on 05/05/2015 - 22:35
          -2

          @JLove:
          No I would not be annoyed because I don't give people money and tell them how to spend it.

        • Ughhh on 05/05/2015 - 22:42
          +4

          @pneumatic:

          So you would just give away money without caring about what cause its going to?
          In that case, can you paypal me $50. I could really have some steak right now. Thanks!

        • pneumatic on 05/05/2015 - 22:43
          -5

          @Dan_:

          That's what they're trying to change you twit.

          Until they change it, the entitlement remains where it is. I see no good reasons for changing it, since the welfare system is not motivated by empathy but by the financial benefit it brings to everyone.

          Yes, and once the change comes into effect, the working class are no longer entitled to money but are instead entitled to assistance with living expenses. Which is the way it should be.

          But then why the special exception for the ultra rich who live on inherited investments/interest for which they don't have to work? Why are these people 100% entitled to their money but the other group are not?

        • pneumatic on 05/05/2015 - 22:47
          -6

          @JLove:

          If I did give you $50 and you ended up spending it on something else, I'm not going to start lecturing you on being irresponsible like some gigantic douche. I understand that people sometimes make irresponsible choices and learn from them, but that's all part of the fun of being alive.

        • Dan_ on 06/05/2015 - 00:31
          +8

          @pneumatic:

          Until they change it, the entitlement remains where it is.

          Yes, well done for stating the obvious. This topic however is about what the entitlements should be going forward.

          But then why the special exception for the ultra rich who live on inherited investments/interest for which they don't have to work?

          Why am I not entitled to live in your house?
          Why am I not entitled to drive your car?
          Why am I not entitled to live off your savings account?

          Oh yeah, that's right… because you're the owner of all those things.

          What an absolutely ridiculous question. What exception are you talking about? If they've inherited it, it means they were the beneficiaries of a will, that is; the previous owner passed ownership to them so therefore they are 100% entitled to it. Perhaps they had successful parents, but what they choose to do with it is none of your business.

          What the Centrelink recipient is entitled to will be whatever is decided by the government that we vote into power. I most certainly did not vote for the Liberals but I fully support their stance on this issue.

        • pneumatic on 06/05/2015 - 00:43
          -4

          @Dan_:

          This topic however is about what the entitlements should be going forward.

          The burden is on you to make that case given that welfare recipients are entitled to their payments.

          Oh yeah, that's right… because you're the owner of all those things.

          You're not the owner of welfare payments, and yet you have deemed that you can take ownership of these payments, despite the fact that in both cases the money is not earned. Why the special treatment for one but not the other?

        • Dan_ on 06/05/2015 - 01:02
          +3

          @pneumatic:

          The burden is on you to make that case given that welfare recipients are entitled to their payments.

          What I was trying to say was; your statement is pointless. Your statement was:

          "Until they change it, the entitlement remains where it is."

          Think about it… That statement boils down to: Until they change it, it will be the same. DUH!

          You're not the owner of welfare payments, and yet you have deemed that you can take ownership of these payments, despite the fact that in both cases the money is not earned. Why the special treatment for one but not the other?

          The government (who we voted into power) can place restrictions on welfare benefits because it is they who provide it on the taxpayers behalf.

          What the hell has that got to do with what the rich inherit? The previous owner would have earned it and they can pass it down to whomever they choose (the beneficiary). How is that any business of yours?!?

        • pneumatic on 06/05/2015 - 01:11
          -4

          @Dan_:

          Think about it… That statement boils down to: Until they change it, it will be the same. DUH!

          Rather, I'm saying it is ethically justified that welfare recipients are entitled to their payments since the current system reflects ethical opinions.

          What the hell has that got to do with what the rich inherit?

          Because in both cases they don't work, and yet magically one of them is fully entitled to their income and the other isn't.

          The previous owner would have earned it and they can pass it down to whomever they choose.

          I'm talking about interest not ownership.

        • Dan_ on 06/05/2015 - 01:28
          +2

          @pneumatic:

          Because in both cases they don't work, and yet magically one of them is fully entitled to their income and the other isn't.

          Because welfare and inheritance are not the same thing.

          If you inherit (and therefore own) an income generating asset, you are entitled to the income it generates. That should be obvious but apparently I need to spell it out for you.

          I'm talking about interest not ownership.

          What do you mean by interest?

        • Ughhh on 06/05/2015 - 06:11

          @pneumatic:

          You're right, I should've chose salmon instead. Choosing steak was irresponsible, not that it matters you because I'm entitled to your money. I have a feeling you're going to run out of money, with the free money there's no reason for me to stop making these "irresponsible" choices.

          Comparing inherited money to welfare is the most ridiculous comparison ever.

        • Oddmog on 06/05/2015 - 22:55

          @JLove:

          Either way it is the dole. Just that one of them can be a lot more generous.

        • pneumatic on 06/05/2015 - 23:22
          -1

          @Dan_:

          What do you mean by interest?

          Living off interest on investments, typically land or properties. Once enough of this wealth is accumulated you no longer need to work or be a contributing member of society for the rest of eternity, and if you support such a system, then "hurr welfare is free money" is no longer on the table.

        • pneumatic on 06/05/2015 - 23:34

          @JLove:

          I don't know why you think you are entitled to my money.

          Welfare is not "free money". Welfare recipients are given money in exchange for behaving in such a way that makes them less of a financial burden to the rest.

          If anything is "free money", it's inherited wealth interest, especially land and property which supports potentially infinite generations of families who never have to work a single day in their life for all of eternity. I fail to see how this is acceptable but welfare isn't. At least with welfare you get something in return (better society, better quality of life for everyone). With inherited wealth interest you get NOTHING in return. Well actually you do get something in return: the privilege of renting properties from these people, further increasing their net wealth.

        • Dan_ on 06/05/2015 - 23:49
          +6

          @pneumatic:

          Living off interest on investments, typically land or properties.

          So that's what you're on about. How the hell have they not earned that? They've made the right choices and invested their hard earned money into income generating assets rather than spunking it all on depreciating goods.

          Once enough of this ealth is accumulated you no longer need to work or be a contributing member of society for the rest of eternity.

          First of all, they've earned that wealth so they are entitled to the fruits of their labour, they've already contributed. What good is wealth and why would anyone invest if it doesn't generate any return?

          Secondly, you do know there is this thing called tax… right??? People are taxed on income earned from rent and interest. Tax at the top income bracket is almost half of what they earn.

          so that can't be your reasoning behind your anti-welfare sentiment.

          How am I against welfare? I was on it at one stage and I'm still far from wealthy, but I'm working hard, I'm building my wealth from scratch, I spend carefully and I don't expect anyone to give me a handout. My problem is with your enormous sense of entitlement towards taxpayer funded handouts and envy towards people who have made smart investment decisions, which I find quite deplorable.

        • pneumatic on 07/05/2015 - 04:09
          -6

          @Dan_:

          How the hell have they not earned that?

          Because they did absolutely nothing to earn it (it was inherited) and continue to live off the rent/interest it generates. So you cannot accuse welfare recipients of getting "money for nothing" while condoning it elsewhere.

          enormous sense of entitlement

          Your sense of entitlement is actually larger. I believe non-working people are entitled to payments of about $250 per week. You believe that non-working people are entitled to payments of $[any amount] per week.

        • [Deactivated] on 07/05/2015 - 11:44
          +2

          @pneumatic:

          "Welfare recipients are given money in exchange for behaving in such a way that makes them less of a financial burden to the rest."

          If this is true then welfare recipients need to be rounded up and arrested immediately. You're implying welfare recipients are blackmailing and holding society ransom.

        • pxrnm on 07/05/2015 - 12:37

          @pneumatic: if you pay tax, you give money. Then that money get distributed by the govt and end up in wellfare as one of its spending.

        • Dan_ on 07/05/2015 - 14:35
          +2

          @pneumatic:

          Because they did absolutely nothing to earn it (it was inherited)…

          It was earned by someone other than you though, who has passed on that ownership. You don't get a say in how it should be used. Whereas welfare comes from the taxes that we pay.

          So you cannot accuse welfare recipients of getting "money for nothing" while condoning it elsewhere.

          For starters, don't place quotation marks on something I didn't say. Secondly, interest you earn on bank deposits is payment for giving the bank cash reserves allowing them to lend. So what do you mean it's money for nothing?

          Just as rent is payment for letting someone live in a house you own. Again, how is that nothing?

          By your reasoning, if you inherit a house from great aunt Margaret and I live in it, I shouldn't have to pay rent, otherwise you'd be getting free money since you don't have to lift a finger, which according to you is unacceptable.

          Your sense of entitlement is actually larger. I believe non-working people are entitled to payments of about $250 per week. You believe that non-working people are entitled to payments of $[any amount] per week.

          Do you know how ridiculous you sound? You've arbitrarily picked an amount of $250 and because I havn't, I somehow have a larger sense of entitlement? What exactly is it that I feel entitled to that I shouldn't be?

          Secondly, we're talking about the form of assistance, the amount wasn't even part of the discussion.

          I see that you're posting at 3:30AM (SA time).
          I can also see you're a gamer.
          Unless you're a night/evening shift worker, you are everything wrong with our generation.
          Time for you to get some sleep, come back when you start talking some sense.

        • pneumatic on 07/05/2015 - 18:26
          -2

          @Dan_:

          don't place quotation marks on something I didn't say.

          It's exactly what you said: you are outraged by the fact that welfare recipients get money for doing nothing, while simultaneously holding the contradictory view that anyone who happens to inherit ongoing capital gains in land and/or wealth should receive money for doing nothing for the rest of their lives, and the lives of all future generations of their family. Unless you can resolve this contradiction, you hold a double standard.

          By your reasoning, if you inherit a house from great aunt Margaret and I live in it, I shouldn't have to pay rent, otherwise you'd be getting free money since you don't have to lift a finger, which according to you is unacceptable.

          I've made no such claim, because I believe that in both cases the inheritor and welfare recipients are entitled to their money. It is you who is selectively excluding one group.

          You've arbitrarily picked an amount of $250

          Not arbitrary, it's the dole.

          fyi I stand to inherit 4 properties, at which point myself nor my future generations ever have to work again. How is that not equivalent to the "free money for dole bludgers" that you are so outraged about?

          I see that you're posting at 3:30AM (SA time).
          I can also see you're a gamer.
          Unless you're a night/evening shift worker, you are everything wrong with our generation.

          Oh noes! He bought an xbox controller, and was up after midnight! Kill it with fire!

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

        • pneumatic on 07/05/2015 - 18:43
          -4

          @tshow:

          If this is true then welfare recipients need to be rounded up and arrested immediately.

          It costs $292 per day to keep someone in jail. Compared to $250 per week to put them on the dole, and in the process reducing crime, and providing yourself a safety net in the process should you lose your job, and increase overall amounts of human dignity.

          But no, let's just arrest them all cause HURR LIBERTARIANISM.

        • Dan_ on 07/05/2015 - 19:23
          +1

          @pneumatic:

          It's exactly what you said: you are outraged by the fact that welfare recipients get money for nothing

          You use quotation marks to quote. You don't use it for your own interpretation of what I said.

          … while simultaneously holding the contradictory view that anyone who happens to inherit ongoing capital gains in land and/or wealth should receive free money for the rest of their lives…

          It's only a contradiction to you because you don't seem to understand the differences between income from assets and income from welfare.

          I've made no such claim

          I know, and that is why I started the sentence with "By your reasoning".

          fyi I stand to inherit 4 properties, at which point myself nor any of my future generations of families ever have to work again. How is that not equivalent to the "free money for dole bludgers" that you are so outraged about?

          Because your parents (or whoever it is) worked to earn those properties, so they are entitled to bestow it upon whomever they wish. None of that property comes from me so I'm not complaining.

          Whereas welfare payments come from our taxes, which I contribute to.

        • Tragus on 07/05/2015 - 19:26
          +2

          @pneumatic:

          The welfare system doesn't exist out of the kindness of your heart, it exists because it would cost you more if it didn't exist

          Evidence? Sources?

        • [Deactivated] on 07/05/2015 - 20:39

          @pneumatic:

          My safety net incase I lose my job is my savings - I'm not going to resort to extortion as you keep implying.

        • arcticmonkey on 08/05/2015 - 13:23

          @laughingwithu:

          Do the rich get forced to spend the money they save by avoiding tax in a particular way?

        • DavidFong on 09/05/2015 - 22:25

          @pneumatic:

          On the occasion that a welfare system is being used to pay for cigarettes, alcohol, gambling addictions or other drugs, then the money does not 'bring financial benefit to everyone', and is creating suffering.

          Cigarettes that are creating lung disease, premature inability to walk long distances, the requirement for a (government-funded) motorised scooter and government-funded respiratory medication (which doesn't work that well when the patient is still smoking, anyway).

          Alcohol that is creating chronic anxiety, and the use of other 'self-medication' to function during the day. Drug addictions which result in either temporary or permanent emotional and physical scarring of people both related and unrelated to the primary index victim.

          Gambling addictions which result in persistent financial hardship, loss of self-esteem, and ongoing dispute with family members who would normally be the closest social supports (instead of a government-funded psychologist and welfare worker).

          Sure, all these dependency problems can happen with the money that people earn in the course of their employment. But if the dependency is sufficiently severe to limit that person's function in society (and their employment), then at least sometimes that serves as a limit to the person's ability to sustain the dependence.

        • DavidFong on 09/05/2015 - 22:44

          @pneumatic:

          It is good practice to give more!

          When I lived and worked in Bangladesh, how could I not give something to the child-beggars and begging mothers with small children? And the same to beggars in China (not as many as there used to be).

          But many of the beggars are 'professionals', many of the children have a Fagan-like character watching over them. (And 'humbugging' is a problem in some Australian communities with high-levels of welfare dependence). So to give money is also to fund an industry which can lead to, when the children are a little bit older, a little less cute, but closer (but not that close) to the age of consent, to a more sinister and exploitative industry.

          So far better to give something which the child will practically use and enjoy themselves, like chocolate, fruit, or even a meal at a restaurant (I don't eat it with them, I just pay and make sure the meal is delivered). Sure, after the chocolate is smeared all over a happy face, the child may pursue me for money as well (because their Fagan would otherwise give them a beating), but they are still smiling even as I say "no, I won't do that".

          A few adult-beggars in Australia will accept something similar, if they are really short of a meal (or just hungry).

          Don't we consider substance dependency an illness (rather than a crime)? An illness which creates slaves of their victims?

        • pneumatic on 10/05/2015 - 08:17

          @DavidFong:

          I agree with you that such a system would be beneficial in areas where there are chronic issues with alcohol and gambling. I'm only against the idea being implemented indiscriminately across the entire country to all welfare recipients (not just the dole). For example those on pensions wouldn't be able to put their payments into a savings account and get interest on it.

      • nikey2k27 on 05/05/2015 - 10:21
        -4

        It cost taxpayer 8,000 per customer for income management of 12,000 in payment it not good value for money. but income manger work went have problem family. eg drink all pay away and take drugs kids stave.

        I done work for people on income management to help them get kids back. real dose work i am big fan of on case like this but not for everybody.

      • buwa99 on 07/05/2015 - 00:05

        Why can't the government just drill another hole or privatize something else. I thought they got rid of the mining tax so everything would be peachy keen.

    • [Deactivated] on 03/05/2015 - 21:31
      +61

      The government is trying to crack down on dole bludgers wasting tax money? Great, where do I go to support this?

      • [Deactivated] on 03/05/2015 - 23:32
        +4

        I can understand your feelings and how they've skewed your opinion but you have to understand you can't just punch a homeless guy in the face and tell him to get a job and expect a good outcome for anyone. Sometimes compassion is the only solution. You should look into it, you can't teach/discipline people unless they feel they are respected.

        • SlickMick on 04/05/2015 - 10:14
          +27

          You can decide whether he buys food or booze with tax payer's money though

        • DrStinge on 04/05/2015 - 11:02
          +17

          This punishes some but saves a lot of others. There are thousands of children out there who are in neglect because their parents welfare payments go to goods that do not benefit the family. This is going to help a lot of people.

        • [Deactivated] on 04/05/2015 - 14:53
          +1

          @SlickMick: You sure can and it would be counterproductive to do so. Nice idea but so was communism.

        • mooboy on 04/05/2015 - 15:46
          +1

          @DrStinge: I don't think it is so straightforward. The sort of people (hopefully, huge minority) that would neglect their kids for their own selfish desires, are the same sort that will find a way around this. Buy food, swap for beer, etc.

          Although the OP's post sounds like a bunch on entitled rubbish, I do think people on welfare should be treated with dignity and respect, and having cards like this is likely just to stigmatise those doing it rough even more.

        • Japius on 06/05/2015 - 07:27

          @mooboy:

          Sometimes shame is a good motivator to make changes and improve oneself. Not like we haven't tried the close our eyes and hand out money approach and unfortunately some have abused this so we need to rethink it, and some tough handed approaches might be needed. It is at least worth a try since the previous feel good mantra hasn't been working well enough.

        • alizzan on 07/05/2015 - 12:56

          @voolish:

          Why would it be counterproductive? It seems the current system is counterproductive in that people who are receiving assistance from the government (and this is intended for a specific purpose, otherwise it just comes a case "don't have a job? Don't worry, have some free money!"). The proposed system will help to restrict the money allocated so that more of it goes towards its intended purpose, not unintended purposes such as cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, Pokies, etc. These things, actually, make it worse for the government and Australian people as they tie up resources (such as police, hospitals, etc) which could be better put to use. Healthcare and protection should be equal across the board, however if we have the opportunity to restrict practices and behaviours which cause problems, we should.

      • Incrediho on 04/05/2015 - 23:55
        +4

        If this really is targeted at those who are "serial offenders" (e.g. recipients neglecting parental/caregiver obligations or have been jailed for alcohol/drug related crimes etc), then I completely support it. It is not only financially sensible, but will probably improve the lives of people who are clearly self-destructive.

        BUT a large proportion of this thread just seems to be another example of the OzBargain community taking a massive dump on the poorest amongst us, generalizing that they are all (or at least most) lazy/pathetic/slimy cheats etc etc. This entire video captures the the hypocrisy in the merciless accusations/rhetoric (especially relevant given the lengths I've seen many posters go to "maximize returns" even when it is clearly at great the expense of another individual/business/government):

        https://youtu.be/ddaSYKhXBdM?t=2m43s

        (I started the video where it clearly highlights the massive number of unemployed or underemployed Australians who are STATISTICALLY UNEMPLOYABLE in any given period of time)

    • arcticmonkey on 08/05/2015 - 13:24

      They should give cards with money on to the rich and the multinationals who are avoiding paying tax.

      What's good for one is good for the other.

  • PlagueistheCheap on 03/05/2015 - 18:14
    +51

    This doesnt affect those with jobs.

  • rbaggio on 03/05/2015 - 18:17
    +55

    Instead, how about you go and get a job like the rest of us?

      • zelda707 on 03/05/2015 - 21:48
        +23

        Then maybe they should be spending less on iPhones and using it pay rent instead?

        • [Deactivated] on 05/05/2015 - 20:43
          +1

          Maybe they should be using ozbargain to find deals on iPhone

      • phoenixx on 05/05/2015 - 00:30
        +6

        Stop copying and pasting your response. You are making yourself look lazy.

    • hairy1egs on 08/05/2015 - 17:51

      What a ridiculous thing to say
      How about you get some facts first before saying that. There are over 770,000 unemployed people in Australia without soon closures of Holdens, Ford and Toyota and all the components factories that will shut down also and only 170,000 jobs available across all industries including highly skilled jobs. So do you also think all unemployed people abuse the money they receive? Why cant an unemployed person take advantage of a deal on ozbargain if it will help them get by a little easier for the fortnight? An example is the DH offers going around can you feed your family for $6.00 I bet not, by forcing unemployed people to buy only at bricks and Motar stores this is alot more expensive and means less money to survive on don't you think? Why are you on ozbargains? To save money?

      • edgar28 on 08/05/2015 - 17:56

        cool down matey, we are saying controlling not banning buying through online.

        eftpos/ special credit card that could ban someone who constantly buying booze or gambling (once a month to enjoy a bit might be acceptable? —> all depends on policy and balance) or those with bad records of booze and hit the children/ wife / husband / elderly/ dog/ public tree/ public infrastructure.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join