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

        • mooboy on 04/05/2015 - 11:27
          +2

          So, you mean it is good from a click-bat point of view?

        • [Deactivated] on 04/05/2015 - 11:32

          @mooboy: yes. Means to an end.

  • spackbace on 04/05/2015 - 10:41
    +12

    https://www.ozbargain.com.au/user/78412/comments

    Such a shame, you wont be able to afford a new bike/aircon/3DS, or buy food from places like Dominos.

    I feel for you.

    • JimmyF on 05/05/2015 - 09:34

      yeah they are doing it hard ;)

  • outlander on 04/05/2015 - 11:45
    +1

    In theory I support this. Giving people access to high quality basic food items so that they are healthy and in the best frame of mind to make decisions. In practise there is too many people pulling this in their favor for it to work. The people it targets in the public mind, the ones who would blow it all on drugs/alcohol/gambing/cigarettes are going to trade the cards for cash anyway they can. Programs like this always start by targeting the least objectionable subgroup, and then if there are no problems it gets expanded to everyone. That will include recipients of other welfare, like the pension and FTB.

    Stores which are part of the program will jack up there prices if they know they have a guaranteed customer base, while stores that aren't are going to see reduced demand.

    • [Deactivated] on 04/05/2015 - 11:53

      But without an attempt to make a change, we will not see a change. I guess when it comes down to it, it is a question of -

      Do you think the current Centrelink welfare payments work?

      • outlander on 06/05/2015 - 12:32

        Wonder how you'd feel if the mechanic who worked on your car had the same attitude?

        Yeah, the car isn't running anywhere near maximum efficiency. We think its the fuel pump, but getting under the car is tricky and my mate darren sells wrenches, so I'm going to buy a wrench from him, and use it to wang the fuel injector's a bit. Its probably not going to work, but hey if you never attempt anything you can't expect to see a change, right?

        • [Deactivated] on 06/05/2015 - 19:39

          In response to your analogy - I would be pissed. Who wouldn't?

          But your analogy isn't remotely applicable to the topic. How is a car (replaceable, predictable, by design, etc) be compared to a society?

          If you think it is applicable, then you'd also have to accept that society will require significant portion to be removed and replaced when the removed portion is deemed inefficient/problematic. And the eventual outcome of a society is to be destroyed and replaced by another.

          Don't be that "philosopher" that is actually considering the scenario above. Just…

        • outlander on 06/05/2015 - 21:01

          @tshow:
          My analogy was in response to your suggestion that all change is good. You shouldn't seek to change things without a good understanding of the consequences of that change. Especially not when it affects other peoples lives. If you do decide to change things, do it in meaningful ways. Not half measures.

        • [Deactivated] on 06/05/2015 - 21:52

          @outlander:
          My sentiments are far from "all change is good". But when something is broken and has been for a while, an educated suggestion is welcome. In this case, they're trying to trial the program. The primary concept behind the program is to replace cash with something less abusable. Of course, details need to be analysed. I am in support of such an initiative as opposed to shooting down any possibility of change.

          Half measures are still more meaningful than nil attempt.

          Don't be Flanders in the Simpsons episode where he is a hippie. "it's not working. We've tried nothing and we're all put of ideas".

        • outlander on 08/05/2015 - 20:50
          +1

          @tshow:
          Your arguments are logical and have merit, but they have no place in a political landscape where experiments are done to reinforce preformed opinions, and results can be cherry picked to support whatever argument you choose. If you can't trust the experiment the results have very little meaning. For this trial to generate any meaningful data, you would have to know what these people where spending their money on before, and what they will spend it on now, what measures they will use to try and circumvent the restrictions, the effect this has on supermarkets balance of power (imagine a supermarket in an area with high levels of welfare recipients. Do you think they would be likely to jack up the prices a bit to eek out a little extra profit, knowing their customers where locked in to shopping with them), the data generated and how it could be misused, the effect on second hand trading, and 100 other things. Do you think that will be done, that the research will be that indepth, with privacy laws standing in the way? Or do you think its going to be a 5 minute questionaire, asking how you rate your experience from very poor to very good.

          You say welfare is broken, but what do you base this on? The fact that it can be improved? Can you show me anything designed by humans that can't?

        • [Deactivated] on 09/05/2015 - 11:57

          @outlander:

          In contrast to many who are against this reform, your opinions are well thought out and I'll pretext what I'm about to say by applauding your argument.

          I do not presume that the welfare system is broken in its entirety, but I will firmly attest to anyone who claims it is as good as it gets in a non-ideal situation. Yes, we can draw inferences from American (north and south) and other European countries, but given the economic climate, I think most would agree that their sense of social welfare isn't working - most of them have debt issues which will cripple their economy in the foreseeable future. The countries that are managing their welfare well are Scandanavian nations where their economy, industry history and demographics are vastly different from ours.

          Since Australia is very unique, economically and geographically, we cannot draw on foreign examples. What we are left with is domestic examples and analogies, of which, I am fairly qualified to give.

          I was a government employed provider of essential services exclusively for individuals on welfare, I've worked as a private contractor in one of the highest crime municipalities in Victoria, and I continue to provide those services on a more limited basis today. My job isn't a desk job either, I have intricate knowledge of their lifestyle. My secondary role in my previous employment was to provide my opinion and assessment of my patients.

          I've since liberated myself from that role, however, not completely. There are those who are in genuine need of welfare and our understanding, but make no mistake, many welfare offenders abuse the system and are not even aware of their own actions. I still provide services under the welfare system, but only at my discretion (representing the two primary welfare and healthcare systems).

  • srhardy on 04/05/2015 - 11:53
    +7

    CENTRELINK only do income managment if 1) you have children & they are not being cared for and educated and where money is spent thats unaccounted for (alcohol. drugs and cigaretts) . Its expensive to manage and their are ways around it that people have found. Its for any family of any color, race or creed. Parents should do their job and this is only effective where they are managed with education, social workers and rehab. Otherwise the children should be taken into care and let someone that will do the right thing gets the money and thats what its all about.

    Parents get good money for care of children and most do the right thing. Those that dont come under this system. Its too expensive to be rolled out as across the board for any recipient of a centrelink payment.

    I cant sign the petition, unless you find me first a better solution. And you can always get a job and then spend your money any way you want.

  • frostman on 04/05/2015 - 12:54
    +5

    I have a couple of families in my suburb that I know are on housing commission. One of them has 2 boats parks outside his house, a 4WD and 2 large satellite dishes, no idea why the government cant send a few people to drive by, assess those assets and make an audit.

  • AG_ACT on 04/05/2015 - 13:02
    +9

    Am I the only one who gets really annoyed when people complain about living on $37 a day? If I spent that much of my salary every week, I'd never have been able to afford my own place.

    Maybe I look at it wrong, but welfare, at least to my mind, is there to help you get back on your feet, not to maintain a lifestyle.

    EDIT: I should have clarified, I support this move 100%

    • fusion17 on 04/05/2015 - 18:17

      Fair go mate

      Coffee and muffin or bacon and egg roll - $6
      lunch $8
      entertainment/rec such as alco/smokes/movies $10
      Thai/chinese for dinner $10

      Close to $37 per day.

      • swiggity swag on 04/05/2015 - 20:08
        +3

        That's your problem, go buy some food from a supermarket.

        • tomclancy on 04/05/2015 - 22:15
          +2

          whooooooooooosh

      • lolmao on 04/05/2015 - 21:38

        breakfast - cereal with milk - $0.50
        lunch - sandwich - $1.00
        fruit - $0.50
        dinner - cook food - $3.00

        close to $5 per day

      • [Deactivated] on 04/05/2015 - 22:25

        Chinese for $10!? Like to live where you do… Last I looked (two or three years ago) it was something like $18 for a small container of combination chicken - with nearly no chicken in it - where I live.

      • AG_ACT on 05/05/2015 - 16:03

        WOW! Are you trying to suggest that I work my butt off all day every do so someone who is currently looking for a job/ or isn't able to support themselves so someone can spend $280 a month on non essentials? No way should anyone on welfare be "entertaining" themselves more than once in a month.

        For the food, it takes 2 minutes to toast some bread for breakfast, and 5 minutes to make a sandwich…

        Unless I'm mistaken, people who are paying for the welfare should probably be leading more "luxurious" lives than the people who are receiving it. I finished UNI and started working full time 8 years ago, and I don't think I can ever recall a week where I ate out more than once a week. If I can't afford to do it on 67k a year, WTF should a welfare recipient be able to do it?

    • This Guy on 04/05/2015 - 22:38
      +3

      Most of that $37/day is rent.

  • dbun1 on 04/05/2015 - 13:07
    +9

    Unfortunately you don't get my vote - I actually applaud this move by the government and wish it had been implemented earlier. Seen too many people abuse the system and piss their money away on alcohol etc.

    • edgar28 on 04/05/2015 - 18:06
      +3

      remember the interview of a single mum saying that they do not have enough support (money)? the mum is hugging the child and still smoking!

      • sigh on 04/05/2015 - 21:33
        +2

        A single mum can get over 60k a year in various benefits depending on how many kids she has other factors and a free house quite often too. I asked a friends mum who works at centrelink.
        I don't earn that! And still have to pay for my own roof!

        • edgar28 on 05/05/2015 - 01:02

          Yes. U r right its equivalent of 54k of taxable income from what I last calculated. (During that TV interview). And I was only earning less than that too (that time). I know how you feel.

    • edgar28 on 05/05/2015 - 01:04

      American system give out food and nappy voucher. Not money. So australia maybe can follow that?

  • tko6070 on 04/05/2015 - 14:57
    +1

    People are going to get booze tobacco, and misc. drugs one way or another. This will lead to black market trade, increased crime, increased management cost per person. Super, corporate tax and Negative Gearing should be the focus of reform. In the next 2 decades the collective cost of Negative Gearing will be greater than unemployment supplements!

    • LeavingTheWheel on 04/05/2015 - 18:15
      +1

      They can still get their booze and tobacco from the big chain stores. The Government probably is getting a bulk 5% discount for Coles or Woolies cards. Plus getting another 5% off if they ING paywave each one individually ;-) If they aren't then someone should send them a link.

      Remove Negative Gearing and rent prices will go up, so the needy will still be affected.

      MOD: You should close this forum thread down, in case OzBargain gets hit with a Change.org petition themselves :-P

      I think it's fair to say the people on this site don't buy the bargains because they need to, it's because they work and they like to.

      • Japius on 07/05/2015 - 06:40

        The basics card cannot be used for alcohol or tobacco even at the big chains, now yes it is up to the operator to enforce it but I guarantee a few audits of stores by the government and finding this being abused and the government threatening to replace it with a card for a competitor and you will find woolworths management making damn sure the checkout people are diligent.

  • tohara on 04/05/2015 - 14:58

    how about they split the payments between cash and this new card? http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vqgSO8_cRio/hqdefault.jpg

    Then over a period of time gradually decrease the amount of cash received so the recipient is sort of weaning off the cash

  • kima on 04/05/2015 - 15:33
    +2

    I see a lot of you want these people to get jobs so Who on here is hiring homeless people, drug addicts or alcoholics, mentally ill, disabled, low educated, single mothers (providing you pay more than the cost of childcare)? please put your hand up and let me know. Who on here would happily work with these people? if you are can you go ask your boss how many positions they have available to these people and let me know. I will go out and make these offers to people so they "CAN JUST GET A JOB"

    • Japius on 04/05/2015 - 17:45
      +4

      I think ACA tried that and found when push came to shove they didn't really want to work that badly anyway. Seems it's terrible to suggest people actually move if their area has no employment. Plenty of people move because of work but some on welfare think that unless a job they love turns up in their neighbourhood they shouldn't have to try and just work jobs they hate and move or travel.

      • kima on 04/05/2015 - 18:09

        Japius i really don't want to run off in all different directions on some made up opinions, if you think that these people can get jobs show me where they are because i know plenty of people that want them. I am serious send me the jobs information so that these people can go there tomorrow and get them.

        • Oddmog on 06/05/2015 - 23:22

          Honestly, talking reality in this place just won't work.

          Everyone believes that they are entitled to their lifestyle and what they have worked for. I could be earning more and doing more as well but a full time job and a specific skills set makes the risk, well, risky.

          Life is well challenging but when you're not outright faced with adversity complacency takes its place and it's very easy to look at everyone else but yourself and how you relate with the world.

  • [Deactivated] on 04/05/2015 - 16:24
    +3

    I support Welfare Income Management, however perhaps there needs to be some work done to help open it up to more businesses, particularly small businesses.

  • martinj on 04/05/2015 - 16:28
    +1

    How much is this going to cost? Issuing tens or hundreds of thousands of cards, and installing card readers in every store etc is going to cost a fortune. What stores will be able to use it? How much will it cost stores to offer it? Will a local store have to spend thousands installing card readers and more again on training? Will the government have to go through every item a store sells to determine if welfare can buy it?

    How much will this improve the behavior of people on welfare? Everyone claims that they see people on welfare spending on cigarettes, booze or the pokies. Is there any research to back this up? Even for those people who spend their welfare on bad things, will they stop? Or are they just going to use their welfare to buy groceries to sell to their friends or neighbours at a discounted rate and use the money for smokes or booze, leaving them even worse off than before.

    Overall I think it's going to cost millions (maybe hundreds of millions) of dollars and provide almost no benefits at all.

    • scrimshaw on 04/05/2015 - 17:06
      +3

      Lower middle class conservatism: The existential terror that someone, somewhere, might be benefiting from something you're not entitled to.

      Yes, let us humiliate those who are poor even further by ensuring that they have to produce Centrelink Card whenever they need to buy food. We'll make sure they are readily identifiable as dole bludgers everytime they shop in a store. That'll teach them for being…. uh, poor!

      • Japius on 04/05/2015 - 17:46
        +5

        Might make them change. I know if I had to get welfare id be horrified and do whatever it takes to get off it. And I'd accept the handout in any form I could get it without complaining, welfare isn't a right everyone should be able to sort their own lives out with minimum and temporary assistance.

        • kima on 04/05/2015 - 20:26
          +1

          yeah you would do whatever it takes like what? cure mental illness? repair broken spines?, clearly you need a lot of perspective Japius

      • ankor on 06/05/2015 - 22:06
        +2

        It's certainly a good point. However what about people who have to whip out a health care card, or a disability pensioner card etc?

        Wouldn't this be similar?

  • mrjames on 04/05/2015 - 16:48
    +13

    Ran out of negs for today quite quickly.

    • swiggity swag on 04/05/2015 - 20:10
      +2

      You'll have to come back tomorrow, and probably the day after as well…

  • rangerdanger on 04/05/2015 - 16:58
    +4

    It's people like n3wb why socialism fails so hard…

  • rowenaduncan on 04/05/2015 - 17:10
    +4

    How about these apples?…. I am a Kiwi, I believe I'm 1 of about 650,000 of us that are over here. For most of us (and I have been here for almost 10 years now - working and paying tax) we are UNABLE to get a government benefit of any sort. It's a citizenship thing (most of us can't get citizenship - a whole other issue). Imagine having to pay tax and NEVER benefit from it come hard times! So people could at least be grateful if they receive a benefit of ANY kind, even if it is restricted.

    • srhardy on 08/05/2015 - 14:43

      We dont treat out kewi breathern very well but your gov is a lot kinder to the islanders getting in as well as refugee's and we also dont want you taking our jobs; so suck it up or go home is the governments POV. Mine is you pay, you get to play. But i dont make the rules..

      • rowenaduncan on 09/05/2015 - 06:31

        Most of us have our jobs because they couldn't find an Aussie to do it in the first place… We do pay. For most of us, this is our home now. But as far as welfare goes, no it's not. If you lost your job tomorrow - would you be happy to pack up and move to a country you haven't lived in for 10 years+? You'd probably have to leave all your stuff behind too (car, furniture etc). And if you have kids, well that makes it even worse.
        That is really is a whole different discussion anyway. It's not just the "dole" we are not eligible for. It is every government funded service with the exception of healthcare. (think women's refuge, flood assistance etc) The government is already in massive amounts of debt. How much combined tax would us Kiwis stop paying if we all went home? You lot would end up being the ones that are screwed. By your own government.

  • misu p on 04/05/2015 - 17:17

    For those that think most people on welfare use the money to buy drugs, I do believe you are taking all the "stats" out of your ass. They are based on a story that you heard from somebody that knows somebody that thinks that…..

    The US made mandatory drug tests for welfare recipients and worked very well http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/02/26/3624447/tanf-dru… at least for the people who sell drug tests, the states spent a lot a lot more then they saved.

    By reading this thread I see that the general opinion is that people on welfare should not be able to:
    1) have a smoke
    2) go to the movies
    3) have any kind of fun whatsoever
    4) it would be perfect if they would not appear in public

    After all they are spending our money so basically lets humiliate them as much as possible, right?

    Also why would they be able to go buy bread from the grocery store?? I shop the the grocery store I do not want to meet people that are on welfare there, right? Let them go to specialized places where they can buy their cheap bread…

    The petition won't do shit… the big chains already have this in the bag.

    Neg away… most are too brainwashed by "news organizations" to hate people that are worse off and that sometimes just need some help.

    • misu p on 04/05/2015 - 17:40
      +1

      More info about drug tests and welfare from the US at least http://time.com/3117361/welfare-recipients-drug-testing/ the point is most people do not use the money to buy drugs. For everybody that you see that you think buys drugs with their welfare there are dozens that do not do that.

      For every "2 boats" that you think somebody has that is on welfare there are hundreds that just use the money to get them through a tough period.

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 05/05/2015 - 04:11
        -2

        Costs too much so no point policing it? Is that your argument?

        For every person in jail there are hundreds who obey the law. Should we abolish jails as well? Dont want those criminals being embarrassed…

    • Japius on 04/05/2015 - 17:50
      +4

      Can't say I disagree with most points. Why should someone taking a handout be going to the movies, when times are tough I don't go to the movies. And luxuries like cigarettes and alcohol are definitely off he menu if I can't afford the basics let alone if someone else is footing the bill.

    • AMLagonda on 04/05/2015 - 18:17
      -1

      All valid points, and no you cant/shouldnt have "Fun" on gov handouts :p , go and get a job if you want "Fun" !!!

      I dont have "fun" working for a living….

    • djmatt24 on 04/05/2015 - 18:27
      +7

      1) have a smoke
      2) go to the movies
      3) have any kind of fun whatsoever
      4) it would be perfect if they would not appear in public

      If the person is spending money unwisely and has been given this card, then:
      1) No. Go buy some groceries.
      2) No. Go borrow a book from the library. It's free.
      3) You're taking the piss.
      4) It would be better if they were IN public, going around approaching businesses for a job.

      Welfare is meant to be temporary, not a lifestyle. Suck it up.

      • [Deactivated] on 04/05/2015 - 23:00
        +1

        I remember that I spent close to a decade and hardly could afford to go to the movies. I quit smoking but that's primarily a health decision, I didn't have much fun (only had Sundays off, I slaved 47 hours a week minimum), and I had a double digit bank account for the most of it.

        Oh right, I was getting an education so I have marketable skills.

        Key words. The S in wordS being the emphasis. Education. Marketable skills.

        • fusion17 on 05/05/2015 - 10:16
          +1

          In the late 90s i lived near Mt Druitt. Single mum on lowest income bracket - approx 18k pa i think.

          I was so envious of all the dole kids rocking the latest nike tshirts, hoodies and jordans.
          Not to mention some had the Atari 2600.

          However as someone mentioned earlier, theyd be having raw 2 min noodles for lunch. And things would get really tough a few days before 'payday'.
          Clearly this is what the policy is aimed at stopping.

  • cktftw on 04/05/2015 - 17:17
    +9

    Shall we start a petition to support welfare management?

  • rr64 on 04/05/2015 - 17:28

    I see no reason why people struggling financially should not be able to buy from second hand stores.
    Best way to get some decent clothes or furniture with not much money really. I'd definitely like to see places like the Salvo's etc included in the allowed uses.

    • rowenaduncan on 04/05/2015 - 17:40
      -1

      People struggling financially can also go on to gumtree looking/asking for free clothes/furniture

    • swiggity swag on 04/05/2015 - 20:12
      +1

      Salvos is on the current basics card schedule. I'd like to know where you saw that it wasn't included.

      • rr64 on 05/05/2015 - 14:10

        The opening post said second hand stores so I guess I made too much of a leap without checking.
        I stand corrected.

  • ankor on 04/05/2015 - 17:42
    +1

    Lots of emotion, but have people actually read around and investigated this?
    I've found a few bits and pieces, but it's nowhere near enough to justify a strong opinion in either direction.

    https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/families-and-chi…

    http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departm…

    http://www.australianreview.net/digest/2013/11/arthur.html

    https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2015/may/1430402400/marc…

    http://theconversation.com/income-management-doesnt-work-so-…

  • LeavingTheWheel on 04/05/2015 - 17:51

    Err, freecycle.org

    But seriously, it's a hot topic and given I don't watch the news, why is the government thinking of doing this? Is it in reaction to a certain event on ACA? Everyone should have the right to spend the money they earn any which way they like.

    I personally hate lobby groups running the country and will not vote for this and that's coming from someone who will be unemployed in the next week, by choice. No one warned me there aren't any jobs going around.

    I might have to step up my game and be a little creative ;-)

    • [Deactivated] on 04/05/2015 - 23:05

      Any high level organisation, the government (strangely enough) included, could not care less what the ACA has to say. The ACA is occasionally good humour, but for the most part, it is trash TV.

      This topic is about welfare, not personal income. Therefore it is about restricting spending for money that was NOT earned.

      • LeavingTheWheel on 05/05/2015 - 11:11

        Sorry, I should have added a few more emoticons to my comment. ;-)

        ;-)
        ;-)
        ;-)

  • Ughhh on 04/05/2015 - 18:34
    +4

    Wouldn't be surprised if some lazy people chose free money for doing nothing instead of working a low paying hard job and not get free money. Im sure there are many people on welfare who have legit problems in life which makes its difficult to find a job and support themselves. But unfortunately, I think there's a significant percentage of people who can work, but dont want to and this ruins it for genuine people. If you're using the welfare money to buy 3DS's etc, then perhaps this management system is needed.

    • kima on 04/05/2015 - 20:33
      -2

      why do you think its free money and they do nothing?

      none of it is free, you are required to do a lot of things to receive welfare including work for the dole - which is way less than minimum wage. and most people volunteer - and i mean that literally. centrelink also force you to "volunteer" just to apply which is really just slave labour because you are not guaranteed welfare payments

      i had work for the dole staff at my business working over 35 hours a week for $250 a week (welfare not wages). and there is no workers compensation when they get injured. so don't you dare call these people lazy.

      so tell me why in your head you think these people don't want jobs and that they are lazy bludgers. i hope you lose your job because you don't deserve it when you take it for granted and disrespect those who would

      • Ughhh on 04/05/2015 - 21:14
        +4

        I invite you to reread what I wrote again, rather than lazy skim reading, jumping into conclusions and making accusations. Notice how I said "some lazy people"? My comment was referring to those people, not people with genuine difficulties. So again, no love for the lazy potatoes. Also, you obviously know how hard I work, better than my bosses.

        • kima on 04/05/2015 - 21:46

          i read the whole thing, so the only lazy one here is you because you didn't bother reading mine properly, you are arguing about how many people you are accusing and i never said anything about how many people you are accusing. your comment was reffering to 'some' 'significant percentage'. so tell me what is the actual percentage? or did you just made it all up in your head.

          no-one on the dole gets its for nothing. you tell me who you are referring too that you are calling a lazy potatoes? who is it that is on the welfare that doesn't have genuine difficulty and doesn't have to work for it? who?

        • Ughhh on 04/05/2015 - 22:22
          +2

          @kima:

          … either you didn't read what I wrote or your comprehension skills are lacking or you're still lazy skim reading. Again, your comment basically refers to "everyone who's on the dole", from the disabled to the couch potatoes. That was not my point. For the 100th time, I believe people with genuine life problems deserve the support.

          I think its fair to say that any percentage of couch potatoes is significant enough to make ones blood boil, even if it was your 25 yr old son who just plays video games all day.

          or did you just made it all up in your head.

          Same could be said with you. If you want to play facts with facts, where's yours?

        • kima on 04/05/2015 - 22:33
          +4

          @JLove:

          if your 25 yr old son just plays video games, what payment is he on? how does he avoid the requirements to look for work, attend interviews and training and work for the dole etc? if your son is doing that then report it, no-one can just sit playing video games and do nothing all day on the dole so his document must be fraudulent, his work for the dole placement must also be committing fraud with false documentation.

          seriously do you think name calling and trying to belittle me makes you superior? its just bad form it doesn't show a strong argument,

          i have not once referred to the quantity, you are arguing about quantities? and to which comment are you reffering to about disabilities?

          even though you are fighting because you may oppose the welfare your not address what i have said. where are your facts? you still haven't shown them? what facts would you like me to refer you too? you can access the social security act and centrelink will freely provide the requirements for all welfare payments - what specific payment do you think provides free money?

        • Ughhh on 04/05/2015 - 22:45
          +3

          @kima:

          Nice chatting with you. Your views appear black and white and you're obviously getting upset.
          In an ideal world, everyone follows the law, is honest with all documentation and doesn't abuse loopholes. But this isn't an ideal world. If you're desperate enough, lying is not hard.

        • kima on 04/05/2015 - 23:07
          +1

          @JLove:

          my views come from actually having experience with people in these situations, i won't accept attacks on poor people. When you are on trying to spread hatred and trying to impact other peoples lives and income its cruel. Lying to centrelink is hard, they do check facts.

        • Ughhh on 04/05/2015 - 23:15
          +3

          @kima:

          i won't accept attacks on poor people

          Is that all you got from my comments?

          When you are on trying to spread hatred and trying to impact other peoples lives and income its cruel

          Right… "people" as in everyone who's on welfare? Or just the people who do not have the intention to pick themselves up?

          Go to bed and calm your mind, perhaps then you'll be able to understand the other perspective.

        • kima on 04/05/2015 - 23:32

          @JLove:

          happy to elaborate on the word 'people' but which sentence did you take the quote "people" from? so i can put it back into context your trying to remove it from

          you know i have perspective from both sides, and telling me to understand the other perspective when you refuse to accept anything else .. well mr pot, you should do the same. good night.

        • Ughhh on 05/05/2015 - 11:06

          @kima:

          I quoted you twice, each sentence had the word "people", so what do you think?

          I've really only mentioned two types of welfare recipients in my comments, but you seem to have your head stuck on accusing me of putting everyone under the same umbrella. Lucky you're not a professional advisor off the internet .

      • sigh on 04/05/2015 - 21:45

        You could have employed them instead if they were genuinely looking for work and valuable workers, would have made 'work for the dole' redundant in your workplace that sounds like it delberately was taking advantage of them how you put it with the gov paying them removing your business from responsibilty over its 'employees'.
        Your generalizing too much, most of us here have stated that the ones abusing the system should be the ones affected by this program, not the genuine battlers.

        • kima on 04/05/2015 - 21:57

          no sigh i could not have employed them. do you honestly think they are going to let these people go to businesses who can employ them? what makes you think they're valuable? - your point is that they are lazy who cares if they are truly useless

          you want to make excuses for your disgusting treatment of disadvantaged people by only reffering to the ones abusing the system, but your attacking everyone. you are arguing that everyone on welfare should be tared with the same brush and you are not showing any genuine examples of people who actually are abusing it. as said above, if you suspect fraud report it, but most people on here throwing out abuse have no idea what welfare involves, have probably never even seen anyone abuse it and saying get a job and calling them lazy and doing nothing for free money which is not correct. its far from the truth and naïve if you really think that.

          go read the social security act, it doesn't allow for any welfare just because you don't want to work

        • sigh on 04/05/2015 - 22:27
          +3

          @kima: You may not have read all my posts as i have witnessed, and reported, abuse first hand. I have even been a recipient of welfare too when when i couldnt find work, i didnt think i deserved it though, i even moved back in with my supportive parents to reduce dependance on it, so thanks for the judgement by the way.
          some do actually do barely anything to get the dole! Even move to areas/towns/cities with low unemployment or job prospects on purpose. Some only have to list 'jobs' they have applied for legitimately or otherwise, may even occasionally rock up to job recruitment agencies after blowing off compulsory appointments with them several times and deliberately sabotage the jobs that are found for them (my ex's mum had 20+ years in unemployment agencies dealing with genuine battlers and deliberate abusers). Not all, just some abuse the system. You sound like you have delt with the genuine battlers, some of us here have delt too often with the ones who also abuse the welfare system. Again i say some, not all, abise the system, there are way more genuine recipients out there, i don't judge them even support and sympathise with them.
          You should read the Act also, there's loopholes, like any system they will be exploited, people on ozbargain here do it to online retailers all the time!
          I have sympathy for those genuinely doing it tough and that need a hand. I know i may need it again, but i don't feel entitled to it, i would be grateful for it like i have been in the past and i'm sure many others here feel the same.

        • kima on 04/05/2015 - 22:51
          +2

          @sigh: centrelink do not allow you to move to move out of your current area into an area of lower employment, so that's just not true. some people have to move from major cities outward because they cant afford the cost of living once unemployed but centrelink doesn't even care about that if they don't choose an area with the same employment prospects

          some people who appear to abuse it are in fact mentally ill, most people don't recognize this a lot of people still think depression is just feeling blue/ just feeling grief when in fact its more like the person cant function. these people and those looking at them might not realise that they are in such a state. and treatment to people with mental illness is atrocious and help lacking.

          i do not think that the system is above abuse, but i think that the amount of accusations of abuse in this forum is over-represented and the genuine battlers are being overlooked and excuses are being made about the rorters at the expense of every welfare recipient and that a lot of people on here form opinions that suit their self interests with no regard for the truth, for the struggles of the little guy - when the big picture is that when your attacking the poor and supporting the rich.

          if some guy is so against working that they go to extremes and risks to rort the system there has to be a reason, even if you don't know what is wrong are these people really suitable for work - this behaviour is not normal!

        • sigh on 04/05/2015 - 23:32
          +4

          @kima: sorry You've just shown how flawed your argument is and ignoreed my own personal experiece which is fact. People do move deliberately to avoid finding work, i have known people personally to do this, yes i reported them, nothing happened and they abused the system. Your own first paragraph says centrelink won't allow this then you say they do?!?My experience says they do.
          You then justify all abuse in the welfare system as mental illness, that is flawed and plays into those that abuse the system and the reason so many genuine people are tarred along with the rotten apples. It doesn't help them, it inhibits them when excuses are made like that for them, if someone belives they're a victim, you tell them a they're a victim and treat them them like a victim you will perpetuate a viscious cycle that won't help.
          People knowingly and deliberately exploit the system. Again i say many people are genuine though but the genuine ones will often accept the help offered when the real problem is recognised and addressed, the others won't. I have suffered severe depression too (not joking, would never joke about depression) and have helped others when i have recognised it them.
          You can't seem to understand that there are people out there that deliberately want to and do twist the system to get money for nothing. Yes they are suitable for work they make a consious decision not to, even sabotaging any employment they are graciously given so they are fired and can return to the dole. They are out there, they are a minority but they are there and i have delt with them personally. You may not choose to believe that, but that doesn't make my personal experience with them a fairytale. I too like to see the best in people, but i have also been burned many times for such an attitude, but i doesn't stop me from trying.

        • kima on 05/05/2015 - 00:34

          @sigh: no i see what went wrong, what I meant was centrelink doesn't care if they cant afford to keep living in their current place. they wont let you move unless its the same unemployment level. its called MALEP. at the end of the day they can use discretion as they know the circumstances

          i don't justify all the abuse as mental illness, i do beleive its a big problem though and not so much a problem with welfare but with peoples opinions that these people are rorters.

          i absolutely understand there are rorters, i just don't beleive the extent to what people on here are making it out to be. i think its majorly being exaggerated and a poor excuse to make everyones life harder. and i would prefer it was not harder for anyone if those vulnerable people are affected because of a few. im really surprised that you would accept that when knew what it was like.

      • b0redd on 05/05/2015 - 10:56
        +3

        Feel free to nominate your place of business. I'm currently a WFD Supervisor, & if you have clients doing "over 35 hours", especially with the wage subsidy that would bring you, and they are still only taking home $250/w, I'd very much like to look in to this.

        Thanks in advance.

        • kima on 05/05/2015 - 12:10

          Sure Pm me and ill discuss it with you. I didn't receive a wage subsidy, Assuming from what you just said your business is not in the same category as mine

    • Japius on 05/05/2015 - 06:55
      +4

      For about a decade I ran a large retail store and would constantly get these types of people coming in asking if I had any jobs going, often terribly presented or showing an attitude of not actually wanting a job, then within 30 seconds asking you to sign a little book for centrelink saying they were looking (I always refused, then the abuse would start), I was in a large shopping centre and they'd run through to a dozen businesses doing the same thing…I guess you could call that their "work" and after half an hour would be finished for the day lol

      Now as some bleeding heart liberals will point out there are some seriously ill people out there and if so messed up they couldn't possibly get even a menial no education required type job then sure put them on DSP. But we all know, especially those of us who have run businesses and dealt with them first hand, there are plenty of bludgers out there too. They are the ones this topic is really about.

      Personally I think it's time welfare in this country got a lot tougher to obtain and had a finite timeframe that it could be accessed (unless legitimately eligible for DSP). As far as I am concerned if you're not so disabled (mentally or physically) to be on the DSP then there is no reason you cant find some type of work. If you believe other taxpayers should be paying these people then surely it shoudl be ok to say "you have 6 months to find a job, you can apply for a further 3 month extension but after that you cannot claim anything for a period of 5 years" Why is that so unreasonable?

      When I was 18 there was no work around my area in Sydney (my area being a 2 hour commute range) so I loaded up the car and drove to Brisbane. Why? because I had to find work. It never occurred to me to sponge off the government and other taxpayers.

      • kima on 05/05/2015 - 12:04
        -8

        you were not prepared to give them a job, they came they asked you and you refused you judged them and abused them so don't call them bludgers. terribly presented - you mean look poor? showing an attitude of not wanting a job - they were there asking you for one!

        you make a lot of excuses but plain and simple you wouldn't hire them. You make standards you know they can't achieve just so you can use it as an excuse not to hire them. If you ever even tried you could've changed someones life, but you don't care because your evil

        • Japius on 05/05/2015 - 12:44
          +1

          Not once in my career did I ever advertise for jobs, I hired people who walked through the doors and applied, now it was a basic retail job so all that was needed was to show some basic presentation and ability to string words together and I would give them a go. Having people come in and ask for a job, often stinking of cigarettes or on occasion booze, ripped t-shirts, smelling and appearing as if they hadn't bathed in days and generally presenting the exact type of person customers would NOT want serving them is no way to apply for a retail job.

          And no it is not about them "looking poor" it is a retail job, most of my hires were "poor" hell most were unemployed or single mothers or uni students. It's about taking it seriously and making a little effort. They were taking the piss just to claim welfare.

          And that's before you even speak to some of them, one or two were at least honest and would say "I just need you to sign this to say I applied" before they even tried to tell me they wanted the job.

          And I never abused them, I simply refused to sign if they hadn't made a legitimate effort to apply. Unfortunately that's when they would abuse me only cementing my impression of them.

          How hard is it to wear clean clothes, brush your hair and teeth and walk in with a resume or at least a run down of what you can bring to the job. I've hired people who have shown me nothing more than they can hold a conversation. Apparently this makes me "evil"? My word Kima what has happened in your life that has made you see the world as being full of victims and predators, there is a huge tone of class warfare and entitlement to some of your posts.

          These people were not applying for a job they were doing the bare minimum to satisfy their looking for work requirements.

        • kima on 05/05/2015 - 12:56
          +2

          @Japius: for some people it can be very hard! and you tell me to get perspective. to wear clean clothes when your homeless is near impossible, if they are mentally ill and can't hold a conversation or not well educated, shy embarrassed and run down then they are not worthy of a job and you accuse them of being lazy. I just called you for what you are. your heartless you don't consider the people that are worse of than you, you expect everyone to achieve your standard or they don't deserve a job, or even welfare apparently

          your opinion is they were doing the bare minimum but you don't really know the extent of their life, you took a glance and all you did was judge and look down on them and attack them.

          there are victims and there are predators, you cant deny that. there are also everyday people and there are heroes. your clearly a predator when you want to interfere with poor peoples lives. most people fortunately are not nearly as evil as you.

        • Ughhh on 05/05/2015 - 13:15
          +2

          showing an attitude of not wanting a job - they were there asking you for one!

          I could tell you that I'm in love with you and ask you to marry me now. Does that mean my gesture and proposals is genuine? I did ask! Or am I just saying it to get your attention and so I'll have a funny story to tell my friends?

          You sound incredibly naive to be honest. It also seems like anyone who disagrees with you or believe chick potatoes shouldn't be on welfare is evil and wants to destroy the world. Good thing you don't make the laws or this world is fked.

        • sigh on 05/05/2015 - 13:33
          +1

          @kima: Kima, you're focusing on the genuine people down on their luck with genuine issues. Most people on here won't have a problem giving them a hand, including myself. Its the ones who abuse the system so they don't have to work, like Japius said too often they deliberately make themselves unpresentable cause they won't be offered a job but they want to be signed off as if they 'applied'. Its not too hard to have a shower and fix your hair if you are genuinely looking for work and those that are will and do make themselves presentable. I've reccomended hiring people to managers that have done this but also been burned by it too. i also have refused to hire people for the same reasons Japius describes also.

        • kima on 05/05/2015 - 13:34
          +1

          @JLove: in your eyes everyone who asks for a job doesn't want it because they are dressed in rags. im not at all saying that all are genuine, but you completely disregard them all because they don't fit your standards. maybe he seemed like he didn't want a job, but if you bothered to offer him one then he may have decided to accept. you never gave him a chance. you assumed he didn't want it and attacked him on that assumption. then you come here stating it as fact well you have no idea because you never even tried

        • sigh on 05/05/2015 - 13:41

          @kima: you're also making a great deal of assumptions to kima. If they don't even have a resume would you hire someone on blind faith who just walked up and asked for a job?
          Businesses need to have standards especially if they have a public face, otherwise i would sue google for not making me CEO just cause i asked for that job. Your logic doesn't work, you don't get a job because you asked you have to suit the position and the businesses needs.

        • spackbace on 05/05/2015 - 13:42

          @kima:

          You just have no idea do you…

        • kima on 05/05/2015 - 13:44

          @sigh: yes sigh your right, im focusing on genuine people with genuine issues, what is stopping this from affecting them and causing further hardship to them?

        • Japius on 05/05/2015 - 13:45
          +1

          @kima:

          They were given the opportunity to present themselves and their case to me directly, the business owner, not some lacky to fob them off. Any and all who walked through my doors and asked to speak to me were given a chance.

          Have a good reason to not shower or comb your hair then tell me, I don't believe I set the bar very high at all. If they could not meet basic standards and also could not explain or articulate their situation properly then perhaps they were on the wrong welfare and should be on DSP if things are so terrible they cannot even get the basics covered.

          The genuine cases of serious mental illness or serious disability (you refer to mending a broken spine in an earlier rant) are not the ones people on here are complaining about, its the ones we have experience with that frankly have no right to question how the handout is given be it in cash or via a card.

          I gave a colleague a woolworths gift voucher as a gift last week, she said thank you, she didn't carry on saying I should have given her cash, she accepted the generosity. People on welfare should be no different.

        • kima on 05/05/2015 - 14:00
          +1

          @Japius:

          I don't believe I set the bar very high at all.

          that there is the problem, your bar is not achievable to some. and if its not achievable to them don't blame them when they tried.

          what is differentiating the cicrumstances?

          you put disabled differently and you would put genuine dole differently but how do you sort genuine dole recipients from rorters? they already have systems in place and according to you it doesn't work, so everyone should be punished.

          No welfare is easy to get on especially DSP its extremely difficult to get on if your disabled then its even harder. There is no-one there making sure they are ok, your assuming they get taken care of other ways and it just doesn't happen like that. they keep them on the dole to keep them trying, if they write them off onto DSP the become stuck there so putting people on DSP isn't good (its more money, but less support - your not automatically entitled to job seeker assistance) making the dole harder does affect them

          when your colleague is not already stuggling below the poverty line and having restrictions imposed that could be severely detrimental she might not need to complain. if you were paying her wages in such a form then you might find her kicking up a stink.

        • 2ndeffort on 05/05/2015 - 15:56
          +3

          @kima: I would add also that most Jobs aren't social outreach programs disguised as employment. I know some employers run those kinds of programs but most employers in the private sector employ people to help them make a profit. This is important as this drives their behaviour in seeking out employment candidates that look like they will strengthen their business, service their clients or help them achieve whatever it is that they do.

          I have a nephew with Downs Syndrome and he has a part time job in a factory that is part of a special program. I'm not sure exactly what he does but for a couple of days a week he is heavily supervised and does some kind of meaningful work to earn some pocket money. I used to work in a Government department and i know several of the mail people that brought the letters around seemed significantly disabled in one way or another (some came around on mobility scooters etc). I assume folks like this have been given employment opportunities to help them with a sense of worth and purpose in life and well done to all that run these programs but there would be many businesses that simply could not afford to carry staff as part of a social program, unless those staff brought something and strengthened the business their positions would be very hard to justify.

          Some businesses need everyone contributing just to keep the doors open and pay everyone's wage. If you come looking for a job and you dont look like you could somehow make the business better, what incentive is there to hire you? I pose that question with the reality that potentially having a bad or underperforming employee, particularly in a small business might jeopardize the viability of everyone's job! i have run a small business and sometimes, literally it can be hard enough paying the utilities bills.

          If i went into a shop looking for some clothes and was greeted by an unkempt smelly disinterested employee I would probably not stick around to find out about their life troubles and probably wouldn't buy anything, i would just walk out and go to the shop across the road where hopefully i would be greeted by a smart, helpfull and tidy employee to help me make my purchase. That might make me uncaring but frankly i don't think i am alone and to the owner of that shop it wouldn't really matter. Lost sales are lost sales regardless of the moral and ethical roots of the problem and business owners have bills to pay.

        • Ughhh on 05/05/2015 - 16:08
          +1

          @kima:

          : in your eyes everyone who asks for a job doesn't want it because they are dressed in rags.

          There you go, another accusation. Anything else you would like to accuse me of? Maybe I'm the reason for polar bears dying, why there's so many mosquito and why people like making accusations to make themselves feel right. Maybe I'm also the reason why your room is probably dirty. what else would you like to attack me about?

          Why all this hate kima? :( after all the majority of us want to help the people who genuinely need help and support, but you keep protecting the ones who intentionally abuse the system, thus disadvantaging the people who really do need help. Why? what is your evil intention! (See.I can play your game too)

        • kima on 05/05/2015 - 16:09

          @2ndeffort: absolutely agree

        • kima on 05/05/2015 - 16:42

          @JLove: its what you said. I don't want to attack you, but you feel the need to come out attacking the poor so be prepared to face the response.

          you haven't said anything supportive of the ones who don't abuse it and have shown no consideration for the impact the effects from things like that would be on them. I don't want to protect rorters you just made that up. you want to stamp on everyone because some people rort it, and that is not acceptable.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join