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

        • Ughhh on 05/05/2015 - 16:57

          @kima:

          you haven't said anything supportive of the ones who don't abuse it

          Are you kidding me? Read my very first comment, then read it again.

          Either you're still lazy skim reading, you can't read/understand English or you're trolling.

          You keep twisting my words and accusing me of hating the people with genuine issues.
          I think is clear now who also got issues and need help, and I'd be happy to support you.

          My goodness, it's less tiring explaining things to my 5yo cousin

        • kima on 05/05/2015 - 17:01

          @JLove: yeah I will always have issues with losers like you who feel they need to attack those worse off than them. you think what you do is support? very funny

        • Ughhh on 05/05/2015 - 17:25

          @kima:

          yeah I will always have issues with losers like you

          Wow, so mature. Name calling. How do you know what situation I am in? What if Im actually currently or previously was in a situation much worser than "them"?

          You accuse us of judging "them" and not hiring "them" without knowing them, yet you're here, judging, attacking and name calling people who you don't know and who believe the welfare abusers shouldn't get welfare money. Isn't this a little hypocritical? If you want to protect those who abuse the system, then I have nothing to say.

          Also, what kind of support have you done? Apart from "hiring" a poor fella 35hrs a week and only paying them $250? Did you offer them a perm full paying job?

          I work hard to support myself so that I dont need welfare support. Even as a student. That money can be used for people who really need it, not couch potatoes. And, incase you feel like throwing in another accusation about me (because you apparently know everyone's life here), I do volunteer work at a hospital. I have many times given up 2x pay and work for free at the hospital. What about you?

          If a guy ask me for $2 to buy a bus ticket home, I expect that $2 to go towards a bus ticket. Not towards a soft drink or a ciggy.

          You're no better than what you name call other people, no matter how many attacks you make or how 'right' you think you are princess.

        • sigh on 05/05/2015 - 17:49

          @kima: so you agree with one person who is saying the same thing others are but want to argue with everyone else?!? You can clearly tell from all these comment that people here are happy to help the genuine people whi need it, but not the bludgers and rorters, but you continually blanket any welfare recipient as poor and genuinely in need and by doing so defending those abusing the system, and i can guranttee thats just not how the real world works.
          If you can't see that, you're actually assisting them to do it and become part of the problem. No one here has 'attacked' genuine recipients of welfare, just the abusers, and you're defending those abusers.

        • Incrediho on 05/05/2015 - 18:35
          +3

          @Japius:

          You are aware that there are far fewer jobs available than there are unemployed/underemployed Australians right?

          Statistically not everyone can be employed (even those capable of work). Hence you have a situation where there are hundreds of thousands (at minimum) of Australians who no matter how hard they try, would NOT be able to obtain ANY employment. Do these people deserve to be punished?

          As a side note. You seem to believe disability is black and white. It's often incredibly grey. Those with depression, insomnia, severe anxiety, ADHD etc. may struggle to maintain employment even if they managed to acquire a job. Even physical disability can be vague and often undiagnosed (e.g. fibromyalga, chronic fatigue etc. etc.). If you turn on those people by limiting access or the time frame they can receive any kind of support, you risk exacerbating the problem (crime, homelessness, crushing self-confidence to the degree they truly believe they are worthless and incapable of working).

          I actually have a pretty complex political ideology (that genuinely wouldn't be classified as left and certainly not bleeding heart 'liberal'), but I do believe as a country we have an obligation to look after our citizens with legitimate need. And unfortunately, with no reliable mind-reading device on hand, innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

        • Dan_ on 05/05/2015 - 19:51

          @kima:

          you were not prepared to give them a job

          Why should he be handing out jobs to anyone that asks? Why should he risk his business on employees of low caliber when there are plenty of people with the right attitude looking for work?

          they came they asked you and you refused you judged them

          Being judged for suitability is the whole point of a job interview.

          and abused them

          Somehow I don't think it was the shopkeeper who was doing the abusing.

          terribly presented - you mean look poor?

          You're telling me these people can't scrape together enough coin for a clean shirt and trousers?

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

          How the hell does that mean they have the right attitude?

      • rompastompa on 05/05/2015 - 13:27
        +2

        I worked at a specialized IT company whose office was a few doors down from Centrelink. Many people would also come through and ask for a job and I had the exact same situation. They knew exactly what they were doing. They had no IT background, nor the programming skills, and purely wanted to ask and get the signature.

        A few would also get abusive, but most were understandable as they had no skills in our field. They'd just go to the next business.

        Edit: I am also evil, apparently. \m/ Businesses aren't always charities.

        • kima on 05/05/2015 - 13:41

          so you offered them a job and they didn't take it? did you report it to centrelink? or did you just assume they didn't want the job even though they were there asking for it

          centrelink makes them look for jobs in the field they are qualified and also a certain quota in fields you are not qualified. they don't do it to waste your time

          add: your right business are not charities so you need to recognize that they wont take in these people, don't blame the people then if the business wont give them jobs. don't tell them to just get a job because its not how the real world works. you wont hire them so don't blame them

        • rompastompa on 05/05/2015 - 13:52

          @kima:

          Nope, they didn't get offered a job. They had no prior experience or qualifications in the industry. Perhaps some did genuinely want a job, but they did not want to know how they could get the job, what experience and qualifications would be required. They'd just want to ask, and get a signature.

          We did hire a programmer that had been out of Uni for a year or two. The Government supplemented some of their pay, which made it affordable to give them a go.

          Perhaps the 'field' was office? I hadn't reported it to Centrelink, they didn't get anywhere with me. I was too busy doing what I was paid to, so the business can survive.

          It's pretty easy to see if someone actually wants a job or not. Being so close to Centrelink, we'd get quite a few, and I'm sure it wasn't just to waste my time, but that was a byproduct.

          Are you against small businesses in Australia?

        • kima on 05/05/2015 - 14:10

          @rompastompa: im absolutely for small business and that's also a reasonwhy I hate these poor attitudes bashing poor people. if they weren't already being forced to look for jobs they were not qualified in (and that you judged they didn't want) then they might not be 'wasteing' your time - or theirs when they could be trying harder to get suitable jobs

          I hear and see a lot of IT graduates without work for extended periods as I am sure you have, even if they went and got qualified for you they would probably stuck without jobs still after getting qualified. so in your eyes how are they supposed to win a job?

        • rompastompa on 05/05/2015 - 14:27

          @kima:

          Well, as stated above "We did hire a programmer that had been out of Uni for a year or two. The Government supplemented some of their pay, which made it affordable to give them a go."

          I can't remember what the organisation called themselves, but they supplemented some of the pay so the government actually paid something like half of the wages. The guy after the job also turned up dressed professionally, and was enthusiastic even though they had been trying to land a job for a year or two prior. It worked, we hired them as it was affordable to do so. We then hired them as a full time employee (not govt assisted). They were the correct avenues to go through.

          Sure, not for everyone in every industry, but they were my experiences. I had never 'bashed poor people', I was merely stating my experiences which were similar to the poster previously. Not saying all people do that, and it must be hard right now to get work.

          I have been lucky I've been able to get jobs pretty easily. I couldn't find an IT job during the GFC, so I was a dish pig in a small restaurant, then waiter. I also didn't have immediate family I could rely on. It was a fun time practically living at a restaurant(work). This information wasn't a dig at the mentally or physically challenged.

          I don't know the procedure as I haven't been into Centrelink since I had a healthcare card when I was a full-time student and part time employee at Coles (Night shift + Saturdays, before Sunday trading existed).

        • Dan_ on 05/05/2015 - 20:01

          @kima:

          so you offered them a job and they didn't take it? did you report it to centrelink?

          rompastompa has said:
          A. His company is a specialised IT company.
          B. The people coming from Centrelink had no IT background.

          So what do you think?

        • ankor on 06/05/2015 - 22:23
          +1

          @Dan_:

          Kima's trollface must be a very good one. Attacking people randomly with wild accusations that have absolutely no substance.. and getting a response.

          Sounds like one of my drinking mates?!

  • neonlight on 04/05/2015 - 18:37

    The only problem I see is this will increase crime where more likely to steal for real money not the credit from government.

    Because people want to drink, needs drugs and cigarettes. You can't stop the unemployed having those. By cutting that there will be more crime.

    Welfare is meant to reduce crime and the same time provide food/shelter while looking for jobs.

    But there are people who abuse the system and those who are genuinely needing help. Unfortunately government has no control on how people spend money so they decide to do this.

    • scrimshaw on 04/05/2015 - 18:40
      +1

      People in the US are selling food stamps to make a quick buck.

      http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/22/craigslist-makes-turnin…

      So it is not completely unlikely that a alcoholic could loan out his welfare card to somebody to buy groceries with or fill up a car in exchange for some booze.

      So you can already see some issues with such a program. Unless you want to implement some seriously high tech gadgets into your card (costing loadsamoney), like having to swipe your fingerprint before the card can be used.

      You know what — the government can do what they like, once they find out from repeated trialling and finding that it's a waste of time and taxpayer's money the issue will sort itself out. The voices of the under-privileged are never heard anyway…

      Maybe they can then focus on making more jobs… something that Australia desperately needs.

  • DxxP on 04/05/2015 - 19:44
    -2

    So emotive!
    I guess this is one way to distract and therefore control the masses including high, medium and low (poor) socio economic.

    Managing money is not the wiring issue. Issues such as labeling people into in groups and outbound and the small minded violence that follows is of concern.

    I don't know the price of drugs or alcohol because I don't consume either. However I have assessed people who did and I find it hard to imagine any welfare payment or basic wage being enough to cover addicts consumption.. Many addicts spent hundreds to thousands per day on consumption of illicit use.

    Even in drug and crime world there is diversity and individuality.
    Not to mention other diverse groups of individuals labeled by various demographics.

    Statistics are a useful but not error free means of finding probabilities for hypotheses. Not fool proof and never proof of anything.
    Definitely not meant to prescribe the way one human being 'should or shouldn't'interact with another human being.

    Groups are wonderful and can achieve bigger quicker. Group think is the danger of losing independence of mind, behaviour etc.

    All money is government money belonging to the people. If you live long enough to become aged and frail and dependent in anyway you will find whether no matter rich our poor your freedoms and what you consider now to be your personal wealth and freedoms are removed.

    Re the card and all else… Time will tell.
    I'm personally looking forward to some informed opinions and review's

    Oh I do remember once being on welfare and my 4 year old being physically injured by a labourer just because and after the man found out while we shared a cups of tea that I was receiving welfare at the time.

    • robbyjones on 04/05/2015 - 19:52
      +7

      What? You used a lot of words and made sentences that made no sense to me at all.

      • DxxP on 04/05/2015 - 20:52

        Auto correct typing didn't help.
        Basically saying let's see what happens.
        And hoping no person would act with hostility towards another individual over a complex although seemingly simple issue of welfare.

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 05/05/2015 - 04:29
          +1

          Auto correct had nothing to do with it.

          If labourers are dropping cups of tea on your children you need to

          1. Call the police
          2. Stop telling labourers you receive welfare.
    • mrdk on 04/05/2015 - 20:05
      +6

      What the f did I just read?

    • Japius on 05/05/2015 - 06:57

      Huh?

  • martinj on 04/05/2015 - 20:09
    +4

    The income management scheme in the Northern Territory costs between $6,600 and $7,900 per recipient, per year. The dole is only $13,500 per person per year. The whole scheme costs $100 million a year, and that's only for the Northern Territory.

    There are so many better ways we could be spending that money. You could give people weekly classes on how to spend money. You could hire thousands of social workers to check up on people and give them personal budgeting lessons.

    Income management costs between $125 and $150 per week per person. For that kind of money I'll personally drive people to the shops once a week and tell them what they can and can't buy.

    It's all well and good to say people shouldn't spend their money on booze or cigarettes, but it would be cheaper to buy everyone a couple of cartons a week than to run an income management scheme.

    • minniethemoocher on 04/05/2015 - 20:36
      +1

      I would like to know where you got these figures from, do you have a link to a source? The figures sound extremely high.

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 05/05/2015 - 04:34

      Hell lets even throw in some drugs each week if it'll be cheaper! Good idea!

      The neglected children who dont receive regular meals or clothing thank you for your cost ssving opinion.

      • martinj on 05/05/2015 - 08:48
        +1

        We could spend the money on things like social workers, case managers and psychologists. We shouldn't spend hundreds of millions of dollars in the hope that maybe it will help.

    • Japius on 05/05/2015 - 06:58

      You're right that trial was way too small, and required rhe cost of rolling out the initial mechanisms for this, now we can roll it out nationally and get the benefits of economies of scale, good point.

      • martinj on 05/05/2015 - 08:52
        +1

        Sure, we will get economies of scale, but it's still going to be expensive. The NT cost $100 million a year, how much will it cost for the whole country? $300 million, $400 million, $500 million? We're much better of spending it on services to help people better spend their money. We could even put some of it towards investigators to find those people who are ripping off the system.

    • [Deactivated] on 09/05/2015 - 12:16

      In practice, I am very much against the expenditures to manage welfare spending. This is purely because of the corporate structure in western societies, where any association large or small, complex or simple, has a packing order and most of the pay goes to senior management. This is a fair system if applied to complex private corporations, but welfare management is far from the same scenario. (example of poor distribution of wages - AusPost)

      I honestly don't mind it if there is a department of low skill level workers performing bookkeeping duties, being paid minimum wage. It is inefficient, but wouldn't it be killing two birds with one stone? Providing employment and managing those who cannot manage their welfare payments.

  • [Deactivated] on 04/05/2015 - 21:38
    -4

    What some people don't realise is… if you sit back and allow government to control one group of people - how long till you're the next group that loses control - of your money, car, home, family, medical decisions… They have no right to dictate what someone spends money on. It's arrogant discrimination. For example: What if the person is really frugal, doesn't need to spend at the places they dictate - can't afford to, or is saving their backside off - to start their own business to get off welfare, buy a car to save on transport costs or drive a sick relative… it's like Nazi Germany. Oh, it's only the Jews - oh, it's only the bludgers. Yeah, for today it is.

    • kima on 04/05/2015 - 22:07

      that's how this started 'oh its only the aboriginals'

      • [Deactivated] on 04/05/2015 - 22:51
        +1

        Heh - yeah, exactly.

        When it all started, it was only a PART of payments that could be limited. If that's what they're doing again, it might not be too bad. But if anyone thinks those doing the actual restricting on the government's behalf will be fair, only restrict worst offenders, be reasonable… they've obviously lived a very sheltered, or affluent, life - and should earnestly pray that continues.

    • c0balt on 04/05/2015 - 22:10
      +10

      "They have no right to dictate what someone spends money on."

      Are you sure it's their money, and not the taxpayers?

      You really want to use the worn out cliche of comparing something to Nazi Germany? Maybe wait until we are forcefully relocating centerlink recipients into ghettos, stealing/nationalising their assets, prying people's gold teeth out to smelt into currency, forcing the ones who can work to work to their death and putting the rest into gas chambers and using their rendered fat to make soap before you make such a pathetic comment. It infuriates me to hear such low ball comparisons to Nazi Germany every time they think of a social policy that they don't agree with. You may as well call the guy who forgot to put enough chicken salt in your KFC chips as Hitler.

      I spent years on centerlink when I was studying at university (as Aus Study payments) as a HECS placement. After I finished my degree whilst I looked for work I then received New Start Allowance. The whole time I was renting a place and receiving Rent Assistance. To suggest that the money should be allowed to be spent on frivolous spending is a joke. I needed that money for food and shelter. I wasn't entitled for anything, it was a privilege to have had that safety net.

      To suggest that welfare money should be allowed to be used for what ever purposes insults those who had received payments in the past, but then got themselves into a position where they can actually pay the tax that pays for those payments.

      It might not be the best system being put into place, but it's a damn good direction to be taking it in.

        • c0balt on 04/05/2015 - 22:36

          Going by his post history and no evidence I think he could have said what ever he wanted to further his agenda.

          It's a maximum of 25 hours per week to continue receiving welfare on the work for the dole system.

          "The Work for the Dole provisions are staggered and will hit young people the hardest, with 18-30 year olds forced to work 25 hours a week to continue receiving Newstart payments."

          "30-49 year olds will be forced to complete 15 hours of Work for the Dole programs per week and individuals in both age categories will have to complete 40 job searches per month."

          https://newmatilda.com/2014/07/28/10-hour-under-abbotts-new-…

          But if you honestly think that even if it was 35 hours weeks for $250 was being worked to their death the same as in Nazi Germany then you are either making a poor joke or you are insanely incorrect and insulting those who were subjected to conditions that were present in Nazi Gerany for non Aryans. $250 a week for a total of ~$13,000 a year is still in the top 20% of income earners in the whole globe. Considering we have a public heath care system and subsidised housing, it's even better than it looks.

          http://www.worldwealthcalculator.org/

      • [Deactivated] on 04/05/2015 - 22:39

        It's just the typical government, "Our polls are down - who can we get everyone else to hate for a while." And:

        1. It's always dole bludgers first cab off the rank. If people go and read the petition, it states something like 75% of people on it - it didn't affect their spending habits - but gutted their self-esteem.

        2. When people say, "It's really taxpayers' money…" Hm… Tend to forget that the government STOLE it from the taxpayers in the first place - and government are the most inept, wasteful squanderers of what doesn't belong to them, on the planet.

        It's still dictating what someone does - as if one person owns another's rights to make decisions about their life. Well they don't. At least, they shouldn't. I don't care where their money came from initially. It's government that are the real thieves and wasters, living like leeches off taxpayers, not the few dolies, who buy too much Coke & KFC. The money is either theirs now, or it's not. If it's not - then don't give it to them in the first place, then demand they spend it in a certain way/at a particular place. If it is, then government should pull their head in and leave them to spend it however they decide. They're spending it on junk food? Hmph… Who was it that approved a McDonalds to be built every few kilometers - yeah, government. Dan Murphy's, Liquorland, Woolies selling cigarettes in the same place we buy food - all the same thing. Hypocrites!

        The fact still remains, don't stand up for government control over others today, then don't expect anyone to stand up for government control over the rest of us tomorrow.

        • c0balt on 04/05/2015 - 22:51

          You need to substitute the term 'influence' when you type 'control'.

        • [Deactivated] on 04/05/2015 - 22:56
          -1

          @c0balt:

          I'll give you some money, tell you the categories of items you can purchase with it - and if you don't, I'll "influence you" by taking it back again.

        • c0balt on 04/05/2015 - 22:58

          @realfamilyman:

          You do understand that the money is never being taken back? It remains on the card until the approved goods/services are purchased. You are allowed to save up all you want.

        • kima on 04/05/2015 - 23:18

          @c0balt: you say that now …..

        • c0balt on 04/05/2015 - 23:20
          +2

          @kima:

          You can say it now too Kima because it's not as though you have any evidence to prove otherwise.

        • kima on 04/05/2015 - 23:25

          @c0balt: maybe but can you say it for much longer? i don't believe its going to last. are the taxpayers going to be happy if these 'lazy dole bludgers' are hoarding their 'free money'?

          just like its 'just the aboriginals', it was never intended to stay that way. just because they didn't tell you it was going to happen, did you believe it wouldn't?

        • c0balt on 04/05/2015 - 23:32
          +1

          @kima:

          Your fear mongering has no credibility without evidence.

        • kima on 04/05/2015 - 23:36

          @c0balt: im not fear mongering, i'm making a reasonable prediction based on previous actions.

          do you go through life thinking your never going to get a black out or a flat tyre because you had no evidence it was going to happen?

        • c0balt on 04/05/2015 - 23:42
          +2

          @kima:

          Let's say that I got a flat tyre every time I drove over a bunch of spikes. I could make the assumption that if I drove over it again I would get another flat tyre. I could think show you a picture of the spikes and it could be considered evidence that the spikes do cause the flat tyes.

          So I ask again, can you substantiate your claims (and particularly your post about having someone at your business working 35+ hours a week at your business for the work for the dole program) beyond comments with a blatantly obvious unsubstantiated political leniency, designed to further your agenda?

          Or will you continue to make unsubstantiated fear mongering comments?

          Just find me one piece of evidence that the government will reclaim payments. Any further comments without evidence of your 'facts' will continue to prove me correct.

        • kima on 05/05/2015 - 00:10

          @c0balt:

          wow I would love to live in your world. no-one gets flat tyres unless you drive over spikes.

          what agenda? an 'agenda' to stop you picking on poor and vulnerable people?

          obviously I am not allowed to disclose the workers personal timesheets, so what evidence would you like me to provide?

          why are you asking for evidence of them reclaiming money? what evidence do you expect when they aren't doing it. your being silly. any more comments from you at all just prove im right and your wrong.

        • c0balt on 05/05/2015 - 00:47
          +1

          @kima:

          I was what you claim to be a 'poor a vulnerable person'. From 2005 to 2010 my only income was from Centerlink payments in the form of Aus Study, New Start Allowance and Rent Assistance.

          Yet I hold my view, and you hold yours. I've been through the better half of a decade on welfare payments.

          I've asked you for evidence to back your statements up but you keep diverting. There is no government program to reclaim welfare payments that have been spent on frivolous spending, yet that is your argument and you can't find a shred of evidence to support this.

          You shouldn't reply anymore. It's just making you look like a lying nutter with a political agenda when you keep making these claims without any supporting evidence.

          I'm particularly interested in if you can produce evidence that there is a 'work for the doll program' worker at your business who works 35+ hours a week, as you have claimed in previous posts. Alas, you can't support this statement, and you keep pushing your agenda.

        • kima on 05/05/2015 - 00:49
          -1

          @c0balt: no that's not my argument, you made that up

          why are you avoiding answering the questions?

        • c0balt on 05/05/2015 - 00:49
          +3

          @kima:

          I have answered all your questions, you have answered none of mine.

          You are making a fool of yourself, and everyone can see.

        • kima on 05/05/2015 - 00:50
          -1

          @c0balt: no you haven't from the very first reply to you haven't. you just keep avoiding it and trying to change the subject or mislead about what ive said

        • c0balt on 05/05/2015 - 00:54
          +3

          @kima:

          Do you really enjoy digging this hole for yourself?

          I've asked continually for any evidence to support your claims, but you keep shying away.

          I could maybe respect you if you had anything of substance, but you keep spouting your opinions without validation and are just making a fool of yourself.

          Please take time to reply with some evidence (as I have asked many times), as without it, you are not proving yourself to be rational.

        • kima on 05/05/2015 - 00:59
          -1

          @c0balt: no i told you i would happily provide it, i asked you what you want and you refuse to tell me. i don't need to validate anything with you. you just keep going around in circles because you know im right and you have no logic

          i think you need to start showing me some proof of your claims because until then im right and your wrong and anything else you write just makes you lose. for 5 years on the dole and you can work after 5 years, your the rorter! they should make you pay back every cent you scammer, your the one who makes it hard for decent people

        • c0balt on 05/05/2015 - 01:04
          +2

          @kima:

          For the 10th time, I want any piece of evidence to support your claims that our government will reclaim funds that has been spent by welfare recipients because they didn't purchase from approved vendors and that your business has someone doing 35+ hour weeks for work for the dole.

          Care to finally provide evidence? Or will you keep replying to me without anything just to posture and think you win an internet argument because you can stick it out for the last word without a single piece of factual information?

          If you could look above then you would see that I have shown evidence for my claims. I have shown how we are not Nazi Germany, how we don't allow more than 25 hours work weeks for people under 30 to qualify for the work for the doll and 30+ aged people do not need to work more than 15 hours a week.

          You are calling me a scammer because I spent 6 years (yes, if you know maths then you would realise that 2005 though to 2010 is actually 6 years and not 5), yet now I pay more per year in tax than I received in payments and then HECs repayments on top makes me a scammer. You are really making yourself look like a fool now. You are trying to fight for the vulnerable yet you call the ones who get out of the hole and start paying their dues scammers.

          You have no idea what you are on about.

          Your opinions are an absolute disgrace. It's become very obvious to an observer that you are a liar, a fool and can't put together a coherent argument to save their life.

        • c0balt on 05/05/2015 - 01:21
          +3

          @kima:

          I want anything, any shred of substance to validate your arguments, as I am calling out for being a liar and you continue to make arguments without any evidence.

          Wait, so he is your worker and you are making him work 35+ hour weeks even though the government mandates that 25 hours is to be the maximum. So you are personally slave driving that guy an extra 10 hours a week? You are getting 10+ hours a week on the back of taxpayers and not declaring this? Could you care to tell me what business you own?

          You are saying I wasn't vulnerable? Are you being serious? You claim to be protecting those who are on welfare yet you call me a scammer because I got out of that hole and started paying tax? You have no idea the circumstances I fell under to qualify for welfare benefits. You have no idea how hard I have had to work. You are the kind of person that is just a disgrace to their cause and further causes resentment to your opinions because you get caught up in internet posturing over having an intelligent discussion.

          You sound so horribly conflicted. I'm glad that I managed to tie you up in such a humiliating manner.

          If I was just another failure then you would claim to be making the comments you are for me. But I am not, Kima. I got out of that rut with perseverance, tenacity and intelligence.

          Again you have nothing of substance besides personal attacking comments. You could have said "good on you c0balt for using welfare for what it's supposed to be", but you just called me a scammer because I got out of that dark hole I was in for a long time.

          You are a liar and a fool, Kima, and everyone who reads this comment chain can see just how pathetic you really are.

        • johnno07 on 05/05/2015 - 02:26
          +4

          @kima: I've never read a more ridiculous string of comments from one user. You clearly want to argue about something, but you're not really sure what that something is. c0balt has consistently provided evidence for his/her opinions (read: facts) and called for evidence to support your opinions that you are so eloquently screaming over the internet. Your responses are marvelously ridiculous, and are basically synonymous with the classic primary school retort spouted when a young child gets called out on their bullsh**:

          Kima: "I could provide some evidence to back up what I'm saying, but I just don't feel like it right now, so nyeah!".

          Bravo!

        • kima on 05/05/2015 - 07:27
          -1

          @c0balt: no the government has made them do 35 hours, I don't dictate that, if you have a problem with that then you call ask the employment services provider as i told you. why on earth you lie and say i am not decalring it? its in my contract and i have to send them timesheets, what a stupid thing to say.

          you fell under aus-study as you have already said. your nothing but a narcissistic liar, you think that you are superior only you matters, everyone else is out to get you. your the only one with hardship and everyone should support you and they don't deserve support themselves.

          you think your morally superior yet all you are is a dole bludger, you could have worked but your a lazy little bludger you claimed welfare because you didn't want to work.

        • mightyfes on 05/05/2015 - 07:35
          +1

          @kima: I don't want to be that guy but you're = you are and if you're too lazy to learn the difference between your and you're then it's hard to take you seriously.

          I am all for systems that encourage independence and less governing so I'm not picking on your opinions just your typos. <3

        • kima on 05/05/2015 - 07:44
          -1

          @johnno07: johnno07 im fully aware of what im arguing, it shows what a hypocrite C0balt is, he is arguing against welfare recipients but when i turned the tables he is giving a bunch of excuses to suit his circumstances but when its not him receiving the benefit its not acceptable. he is not vulnerable he just wanted a hand out and has excuses to justify himself yet can come on here abusing real vulnerable people.

          don't quote me saying things i never said. i never said i could provide my workers logs which i said clearly is against the law so stop repeating nonsense

          your just arguing for the point of arguing, do you think that ignoring the point and trying to argue about the number makes a difference, even if you want to go by the above stated 25 hours, that's still well below award wage, and they still are required to attend other training and interviews, 40 job applications and other requirements. so how does that negate what i said? its still well below award.

          you don't care less about what i've said your just oppose the welfare recipients, so stop pretending your opinion comes from anything other. no matter what i say even if i repeated your thoughts you would object just for the sake of being oppositional

        • kima on 05/05/2015 - 07:54
          -1

          @mightyfes:just because i type it doesn't mean i am not aware of the difference, as if you read back i'm sure you will find instances where i have used it correctly. you totally want to be that guy you just don't want to admit that your truly aggressive so you prefer to appear passive aggressive. but grammar does not negate my points. thanks the unwarranted lecture but i have no desire to correct it, I'm sorry you can't handle that.

        • johnno07 on 05/05/2015 - 11:38
          +1

          @kima:

          grammar does not negate my points

          No. Just the lack of any evidence does.

          [c0balt] is not vulnerable he just wanted a hand out

          First of all - how the actual heck could you know that? Telepathy?
          Secondly, c0balt might not be now, but from what he said, he was. Which is why he is no longer receiving payments, but rather paying the taxes that go towards these payments. He gave his circumstances, which clearly entitled him to receive benefits (as he did in fact receive them) and therefore the only way you can say that he wasn't "actually vulnerable" is if you assume that he is lying. I would argue that if c0balt had in fact been fraudulently receiving Centrelink payments, that he probably wouldn't have spoken up in the first place. As he really has no reason to lie, I'm going to make a call, on the balance of probabilities, that c0balt is telling the truth. So, save telepathy/stalking/voodoo, there is absolutely no way that you could make the call that he is lying about his circumstances.

          Take a break from the keyboard, mate - it's getting ridiculous.

        • c0balt on 05/05/2015 - 11:51

          @kima:

          I never argued against welfare. Could you please provide a quote where I did? I can quote you calling welfare recipients 'dole bludgers' but I have never referred to them in a derogatory form. I said I am for a system that better allocates how funds are to be spent and encourage people getting off welfare. I believe 100% in having a welfare system. You can quote me on that.

          You called me a 'dole bludger' because I received Aus Study payments after qualifying for them? Does that make every student non-eligible for welfare and dole bludger in your eyes? Really? How can you honestly make comments such as that? How can you justify calling students on welfare 'dole bludgers' but then claim to be fighting for all welfare recipients? Are you aware that making those comments (which I assume is just to spite me as you are losing on every front) such as that makes you appear horribly conflicted and small?

          You are also calling me a narcissistic liar, yet I have provided evidence for all my claims and when I ask you for a shred of proof but you just respond with statements such as that.

          You are correct about one thing though, Kima. I do think I am morally superior to you. I think that I am superior to you in every way. You are the kind of person that if I knew who you were in real life. I would get a loan from the bank to set up a competitors business to yours, use a superior skill set to start up a lower cost yet higher yielding business model, then steal all your clients through charm, just so I could you broken and destitute.

          Again you don't provide any evidence of your claims, you are a heartless small man who forces their 'work for the dole' employee to work 35 hours even though it's a 25 hour government mandated maximum. You sound like the kind of person who would rather continue that relationship than give him a real paying job at your company or contact the job services company to inform them that he is worked 10 hours more than what he needs to.

        • kima on 05/05/2015 - 12:26
          -2

          @c0balt: Well exactly my point, when I turned the table on you then you don't agree with it. so your just an absolute hypocrite. I have clearly stated my views which I do not stand for abusing welfare recipients and your opposing that. you cant provide evidence for anything you say, you ask for non existant documents but refuse to tell me what you want when I asked you and try to throw off your whole argument on that instead of coming up with real argument about the actual matter, its pathetic. your not superior your not smart you cant argue all you can do is try to throw off so you don't think you have are wrong and that ive given better perspective than you.

          I hope you would get a loan and do that, because I would love more competition. steal my clients - I would love that honestly you have no idea, being non profit would love more people contributing to decent causes unlike your selfish intentions. all you care about is yourself and you think you can destroy me lol total narcissist. go ahead and try. come on pm me and ill tell you exactly how you can start your little revenge business. it would be the only way to get you to contribute anything decent to this world

        • kima on 05/05/2015 - 13:05

          @c0balt: funny calling yourself morally superior when all your doing is attacking poor people. oh yes your narcissistic highness, you so morally superior. all bow down to C0bolt, the great taxpayer (who needed welfare to get him there)

        • TopCat on 05/05/2015 - 14:18
          +2

          @kima: I needed Youth Allowance to see me through my teen years. That comes from taxpayers. Now I also have a HECS fee of about $29,000 which is slowly paid off over time- I dont make any voluntary contributions to this debt.
          I now work full time and contribute to society by paying tax each year.
          Would you classify me the same as C0balt?

        • kima on 05/05/2015 - 14:27
          -2

          @TopCat: im not against welfare, I am supporting welfare recipients, C0balt is opposing me and I was just showing that when it came to him, then he has double standards.

        • TopCat on 05/05/2015 - 14:47
          +2

          @kima: I am 100% in favor of control mechanisms being implemented upon the minority (i think someone in this thread said it was about 25%) of those receiving welfare, and I 100% support C0balts perspective on this.
          I think your previous comments are not well thought out and this thread has made you look a bit of a loon.
          Because I am in favour of C0balt, am I now a hypocrite too due to my use of welfare in the past?

        • c0balt on 05/05/2015 - 17:23
          +4

          @kima:

          Your posts are offensive to anyone who has ever received welfare payments. You are not helping by calling them 'routers', 'dole bludgers', 'hypocrites', 'wanting handouts' and more. Yes you have called people who have recieved payments all those derogatory terms in your above posts. Then you say I am the one against welfare yet not once have I made an offensive remark to those on payments or have received payments in the past.

          You then claim I'm the one with double standards but I've quoted your double standard and your only hope at salvaging any credidibility was to lie, which I then called you out for in all my posts.

          You then make your 'work for the dole' worker (who I believe you are just yet again lying about) work 35 hours a week when it's the government mandate to have them work 25 hours maximum. So you are slave driving a welfare recipient, yet claim you are fighting for them. So instead of sticking up for someone you know personally, you are pushing them harder for no extra pay. If that's how you treat the down trodden on a personal level then you are a monster.

          You claim that I am attacking poor people, but I haven't made a single comment to that effect, you haven't even quoted me once on it. I'm attacking idiots such as yourself. It's hilarious you are calling people all those bad terms, yet then say you are fighting for them. It's even better when you say you turned the tables yet everyone can see you are still just as conflicted with no real argument and I haven't wavered from my first post.

          Honestly with every post you make you just keep making yourself look like a complete fool. Appearing as someone who can't string a coherent argument together, keeps lying, keeps tripping over their own ideals, keeps misquoting, and to be frank has the spelling of someone in primary school.

          Turn on your messaging. I want to PM you to ask your business as you had just replied above that you would tell me. But I have a feeling you are just posturing and lying again. There's no way you would want to tell me your business name, but you want others to think that you would

        • mightyfes on 07/05/2015 - 16:14

          @kima: No worries, you're welcome

      • [Deactivated] on 04/05/2015 - 22:54
        -4

        It is akin to WWII, when you take over someone's right to make their own decisions. And there's other things going on too, that I won't go into to hijack the thread, that demonstrate that very same mindset. There's a reason people trot out the comparison - because in many ways it's valid.

        • c0balt on 04/05/2015 - 22:54
          +5

          You are just being pathetic now.

        • [Deactivated] on 05/05/2015 - 00:01
          +2

          There's a reason why people still trot out the comparison - they can't find a better example due to lack of education.

          Taking an abstract concept and extrapolating it to mirror history, a poor scenario at that, isn't exactly impressive.

          Shame on those who would consider influencing welfare payments remotely comparable to any war crime, let alone one of the worst. Shame.

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 05/05/2015 - 04:37
      +5

      You are comparing this initiative to Nazism?

      Never go full retard.

    • Japius on 05/05/2015 - 07:03
      +1

      They're saving taxpayers money to start a business? I'm not sure that is the intention of government handouts. It's taxpayers money given to them generously to cover basics, and in whatever form the taxpayer (via the government) deems they shall receive it is how they will receive it and frankly they should be thankful they're getting anything. What's wrong with a welfare recipient simply saying thank you, why do they have to complain about how our generosity is given.

      As for moving on to other people, maybe it should, when it hit the aboriginals my first thought was why not all the white bludgers on welfare too.

      Instead of thinking of welfare as a right see it as a generous helping hand from the rest of us. And no one said it has to be cash, just change the mind set. If you need welfare to survive then be thankful that the government gives you a card you can use to buy basic food items, it is wonderful and terribly generous, be thankful for that.

  • Baysew on 04/05/2015 - 23:59
    +9

    it's like Nazi Germany.

    The thread has just hit Godwin's Law

    Time to close the topic !

    • [Deactivated] on 05/05/2015 - 00:03
      +2

      Thanks for the link. I was really scratching at my noodle trying to think of what it's called.

      I can sleep now.

    • kima on 05/05/2015 - 00:21
      -8

      The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering known mainstays of Nazi Germany such as genocide, eugenics, or racial superiority, nor, more debatably, to a discussion of other totalitarian regimes or ideologies[citation needed], if that was the explicit topic of conversation, because a Nazi comparison in those circumstances may be appropriate

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 05/05/2015 - 04:49
        +3

        You need to stop typing.

        • kima on 05/05/2015 - 08:13
          -1

          you need to stop thinking that you can dominate other people.

        • sigh on 05/05/2015 - 18:34
          +4

          @kima: like you're trying to?

  • Thaal Sinestro on 05/05/2015 - 00:31
    +4

    The selfishness and callousness of the Australian middle class people never ceases to amaze me. At every opportunity these rich middle class types vilify the poor and the welfare recipient, while themselves receiving huge amounts of middle class welfare - negative gearing, super tax concessions, childcare rebates, family tax benefits and so on. They send their kids to private schools, own multiple SUVs and a boat, have at least 1 rental property, go on 4 weeks of overseas holidays every year, yet deride the poor whose only luxury is cheap grog. They feel entitled to all these middle class welfare programs (and tax concessions are a form a welfare), but regard recipients of other forms of welfare as subhumans. The poor masses need to get their act together and overthrow the decadent bourgousie.

    • CheapCoffee on 05/05/2015 - 00:37
      +4

      I don't think most people here are antagonising the people on welfare at all. Many actually said that they used to be welfare themselve during their lows (eg. Within teritiary education, looking for jobs etc.) And used it as a platform to bounce back.

    • kima on 05/05/2015 - 00:39
      +1

      they will if the squeeze gets put onto those already struggling, they are all going to get robbed while they work.

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 05/05/2015 - 05:05
        +4

        Then they can enjoy their free taxpayer funded food and essentials from the comfort of a jail cell.

        Kima, your arguments in this thread have thus far consisted of

        1. People on welfare will rob you if they arent given drugs and alcohol.
        2. This initiative is a ploy by the government to take everyones money away, yet you have no evidence.

        Enough scaremongering.

        • kima on 05/05/2015 - 08:11
          -2

          neither of those 2 have been my point. if you have an actual point of view then express it otherwise trying stop trying to throw off my valid argument just because you can't win.

    • AMLagonda on 06/05/2015 - 12:27
      +1

      Are you trying to say that these middle class snobs, these HARD Working tax paying middle class people should stop whinging about lazy good for nothing dole bludgers?

      lol

      I think you will find rich or poor people are all the same, all the same problems just different scales.

      This thread is about money management for welfare recipients that don't feed their children, and believe me I see that every day.

    • Ozimodo on 07/05/2015 - 11:24

      Seriously, you're encouraging a revolution? Who are you people???

  • edgar28 on 05/05/2015 - 01:04
    +2

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

    • Davo1111 on 05/05/2015 - 04:42
      +3

      When i worked in a remote area, i was told that the locals get food stamps. The problem is they trade them in on "the black market" for 50% or less of face value. So the kids suffer because of the parents. It's pretty terrible.

      • JimmyF on 05/05/2015 - 09:31
        +3

        If they are trading their food stamps on the black market for cash, then the kids would have suffered anyhow.

        Basically if they want CASH, then they are not spending it on food etc, IF they are willing to take a 50% loss on its value, then they are most likely spending the money on booze/drugs so once again the kids would have suffered if they got cash or food stamps.

        • edgar28 on 05/05/2015 - 12:30
          +2

          Spot on

        • kima on 05/05/2015 - 15:24

          well worse so since now that $50 of booze is now $100.

        • spriggy on 05/05/2015 - 20:04

          @kima: you're not getting the point

        • JimmyF on 06/05/2015 - 19:16
          +2

          @kima: Well the kids might be better off, as they can only spend $50 on booze rather than $100 on booze! Less booze, might mean less beatings ;)

  • [Deactivated] on 05/05/2015 - 06:46
    +3

    The somewhat general attitude here that disabled, illiterate and/or spirited people that do not fit the requirements for work life, are incapable of handling their own affairs, are irreponsible, and must all be treated like the few that would benefit from intervention or financial control is truly offensive to me.
    The right to govern, enforce law or control over others is questionable at best. We are given NO choice (zero) during our life to participate, or opt-in to existing enforced systems, rather engage in prefabricated lives tantamount to modern slavery by some accounts.
    Too many rules, too much control, little real hope, and a long term trend of environmental destruction is why many opt out. It has been said welfare is a clever means to stave off the revolution amongst other benefits to the state.
    Don't be so proud of your participation…

  • JimmyF on 05/05/2015 - 09:29
    +6

    Don't like your 'FREE' money conditions? Then get a job. You can spend the money you earn any way you want!

    As a tax payer, I'm happy that my taxes will be controlled and not wasted by 'people in need' while they look for a job!

  • WaterMark on 05/05/2015 - 09:37

    Sounds like America's food stamp. I support the reduction spent on alcohol, drugs, and useless items. But there will be dodgy vendors claiming to sell food etc but supply ciggarettes. Kind of like the part in 'Orange is the new black'.

  • ashikk on 05/05/2015 - 10:36
    +9

    This is why my blood boils when dole bludgers complain that they cannot support their disgusting habit of smoking and alcohol. Learn to live within your means (welfare) or just go get the Fking job. I don't care what they do with their earned money but for the Fk sake stop complaining about the welfare you getting.
    Where I come from there is no welfare for the jobless and kids they produce, they work hard for the kids to go school and or they give the life lesson to their kids in small age by making them work to earn money.
    When I lost my job in 2008, I still survived for 1 and a half years with my savings and holiday pay before getting another job because I managed my money well. I didn't ask centerlink to give me handout.
    I send my son to private school and another one to long day care for two days but i don't expect any handout from centerlink for CCB. I work every weekend and take days off during weekday so I can look after my son and not send to childcare.

    • centrelink on 05/05/2015 - 12:01
      +3

      I used to work hard to make money, then I realised, working smart was a lot easier..

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join