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

      • ashikk on 05/05/2015 - 12:44
        +2

        I realised that too. As long as I'm capable of earning money I will never go on dole no matter what I have to do earn money, legally though.
        Working smarter= managing money well. NOT TO ROT THE SYSTEM as some people are doing. that's how I survived that long. And I'm proud of myself for doing that.

        • phoenixx on 05/05/2015 - 12:52
          +3

          *rort

  • tommy-darko on 05/05/2015 - 13:53
    +5

    I would hate for any of you narrow minded, ignorant and misinformed that have the opinion that all welfare recipients are dole bludgers to ever become disabled and unable to work, I'm sure you would not want to be controlled or told how to spend your benefit. To group everyone in to one category is extremely closed minded and shows a lack of intelligence and insight. You see, you have to be very frugal when you have medications to pay, psychologist, physio and other doctors appointments and the fuel / taxi money to get there. To then punish these people and cause more constraint because of the actions of others is extremely wrong and heartless, it can only make them feel more segregated from the rest of society. To also say that all people who are on drugs and alcohol are inherently bad is another closed minded point of view, some are victims of abuse and it can become their only way to escape their hell and they become dependent and need help and support to ween of it. You can't give someone something like the pension that they have been on for years and then one day control the way they are able to spend it, it will cause all types of confusion and unrest. There are many scenarious and variables to consider, particularly when it comes to the disabled that have certain requirements to live. Some have extreme social anxiety, agoraphobia or autism for example that when they do leave the house, can only go to familar places or else it sends them in to panic, to then control where they must go and spend their money will cause public mayhem. I think some of you need to be a bit more open minded and logical when it comes to any form of government control, if you give them too much, we become less and less human and more like pre-programmed robots off an assembly line and after all, the welfare system is there for everyone's benefit, as a safety net for if and when you ever fall on hard times. To me, this should be targetted at those that are known offenders, have a criminal record with regards to drugs and alcohol because not everyone on welfare is a criminal and to treat them as such will be more detrimental than helpful especially for those that are sensible and frugal with their small amount of money, they should not be punished.

    • edgar28 on 05/05/2015 - 14:28
      +2

      there's always a method for special need ppl. We are talking about general users and how to stop people from abusing.

      Cash card (pre paid credit card without monthly or annual fee) with auto block system?

    • Captain Howdy on 06/05/2015 - 23:04
      +3

      Good point. I know someone that would love to work but is unable to due to a disability. Being branded welfare scum is an inevitability for them. Additionally, being that thier disability is neurological and not physical, and they appear able bodied, people are even more blatant in judging and stigmatising. Get treated like they're nothing. Seen it happen myself.

      This welfare monitoring thing will rob people like this of what little dignity they have left. But that's okay, because we'll get those bludging slugs in the process. YEAH RIGHT - you just send it underground, make the situation worse. There will be deals made, swaps, thefts etc. They'll find a way to do what they did before.

  • rmamila on 05/05/2015 - 13:56
    +2

    When some people get free cash lots of money ends up being spent for alcohol and gambling. Gov must have done this to stop wasting the free money they give. They can't print money and give it to people who cannot find work or don't want to work. All that money comes from people who work very hard and they pay as Tax. So some one else has worked hard for that free money you are getting. So the Gov better make sure that money is spent for the right reason. If they want to lock that money to spend withing the country to boost the local economy, that's a great thing they can do.
    I am sure there are some single moms and disabled people who are getting this money and they really need it to live. But I know there are many who gets this don't deserve to get it. This is a one of the good decision from Government, so we all should support it.
    I personally know an individual who is getting a Gov pension from early 30s, who is very healthy and has some Uni education as well. I asked few times why don't you find work. He has never applied for any jobs but don't want to work either. The only reason given was that he would loose the pension if he start working. He too talks big when there is any change from Gov to control that free money. He votes in elections only thinking about his free pensions nothing else. I am sure there are many out there in this category.

  • weeenis on 05/05/2015 - 14:46
    +2

    they should just call it "FOOD STAMPS" … then more people will accept it

  • weeenis on 05/05/2015 - 14:55
    +5

    Everyone ….just CALM DOWN !! i think the real question here is will these card come with paywave ?

    • misterpotatomato on 06/05/2015 - 07:28
      +1

      And will it entitle you to 5% off transactions under a hundred dollars?

  • fluffyd1 on 05/05/2015 - 15:47

    Could we possibly have a poll counter added just for interest's sake? What does OZB think as an audience?

    Right or wrong it's an interesting topic that I will struggle to word without bias. So feel free to amend or change to a simple yes no.

    Something like:
    Do you support in principle placing restrictions on the products and/or services that can be directly purchased with funds received through the current (Australian) welfare system?

    No (But if it worked Yes)
    No (I think it is degrading and will result in more wastage/lower benefit from the 99% doing the right thing)
    No
    Yes (The intent is to help those who can't help themselves)
    Yes (It will encourage active monitoring of those abusing the system, least they have to try harder to get around it)
    Yes

  • goosegog on 05/05/2015 - 16:22
    +1

    These no good taking receipients of our hard earned tax money spend it on booze & drugs - in most cases. Unfortunately the poor people who do deserve benefits are tarred with the same brush, which is not fair. Yes, if money is being given out with no input for it, the government should be allowed to ask where it is being spent.

    • [Deactivated] on 05/05/2015 - 20:24
      +2

      Sorry, who's to say who does/doesn't deserve benefits. The government's role is to protect those with less power, yet they constantly attack them instead. We give money to the government so we should b allowed to ask where it's spent. Where does it go? It goes toward locking up the weakest of our country and subsidising the lifestyles of the rich and spoilt.

  • hairyone on 05/05/2015 - 16:27
    +3

    If I were such way inclined/stuck: I'd simply purchase my Mate's groceries & award him 10% for his inconvenience:
    He'd then reimburse me, via his cash: I'd probably pay him his 10% duty (in booze) from what I'd buy with his cash.

    There are instances whereby I'd imagine that a "BasicsCard" may be warranted:- And as-such I'm not wholly averse to the notion:
    Yet you'd have to be idealistically naive to think it won't simply become just another avenue for black-market capitalistic parasites.

  • hairyone on 05/05/2015 - 16:54
    +2

    Such a card would be far more usefully-beneficial if it could be used to purchase food that's about to be wasted.
    For instance: "Kingsleys Chicken" may sell-off their old stock & still get something for it:- As apposed to nothing.
    Half of something is better than all of nothing:- I'd reckon such companies may cut food wastage via this manner.

    • kima on 05/05/2015 - 16:58

      that's a great idea, there are some food wastage charities that try to do this like foodbank but from what I have seen its not been very efficient or wide spread, usually only applied to bakeries for bread and damaged/expiring long life stock at supermarkets. ive contacted ozharvest 3 times and never get a response

  • Blurry on 05/05/2015 - 18:59
    +4

    This topic makes me laugh, either get a job or stop buying cigarettes, alcohol and/or drugs. Its a great idea, i hate seeing my tax dollars going to waste and i only pay $2k per month in taxes. I know people who pay a lot more than that for serial dole bludgers to laze about and wake up at the crack of 2pm. </rant>

    • [Deactivated] on 05/05/2015 - 20:18
      +8

      I hate seeing my tax dollars go to waste subsidising the affluent and wasteful lifestyles of the rich

      • captobvious on 05/05/2015 - 22:25
        +2

        Depends on your definition of "rich". I know of certain unemployed people on centrelink, who sell drugs and drive around in 100k + bmws and range rovers, splashing cash at the Casino and fly business class everywhere.

        Then there are old Grandparents who are considered "rich" by means testing who are just old, paid tax most of their lives but own a nice property in eastern sydney cause they've had it since the 1950s and bought it for nothing because no one wanted to live out that way back then, drive around in an old datsun sunny who are entitled to drum roll $45 a fortnight pension and have more than a dozen grand children and great grand children who they love and like to try and spoil with literally no money (the family puts together money so they can live).

        • Japius on 06/05/2015 - 06:42
          +3

          The new breed of welfare recipients are grandparents by 30. Times have changed

        • Incrediho on 06/05/2015 - 12:11

          @btdroppedbox

          If that first example is even remotely true (and I have my doubts - it's easy to say whatever you want about those "anonymous friends" when it suits an argument), it would be easily remedied with a report to Centrelink. The excessive trail of wealth and luxury you accuse them of would be easily proved (especially with a long list of business class flights and having your name associated with a $100,000 + vehicle). Maybe get the ATO involved too, they may be up for several counts of fraud.

          As for the second example; no one is targeting old grandparents living in modest homes who make no income. That is just a scare tactic levied to sure up the lower and middle income conservative voting base who would almost always be financially better off under a centre/ centre-left labor government. IF those grandparents are innocently sitting on a multi million dollar property then maybe there is an argument to be made for selling it and moving somewhere more affordable (and suddenly having a million dollars + in liquid assets and no reasonable need for any kind of welfare payment — hence why property value can be assessed as part of personal wealth).

        • captobvious on 06/05/2015 - 21:00

          @Incrediho:
          So naive, sorry to burst your bubble. the example does actually occur; they are not my friends as my friends to the best of my knowledge are in good standing with the public, I don't associate with welfare defrauders however I am aware of this due to a previous line of work. In most cases it is easy to defraud centrelink and the ATO with a good cover story, paying for extravagant holidays in cash (which is the choice currency with illegal activities, in addition flights on bank statements do not specify business class either, expensive vehicles are not in the name of the mentioned (in a relatives name), no title to property and assets when searched and ensuring attendance in the dole line at a lower socioeconomic area wearing thongs and singlet arriving by public transport or taxi they never signal red flags and most of the time will not get investigated due to the relevant departments not having the appropriate resources and time. This goes beyond the best effort to brush the surface as you have mentioned. A model welfare receiver when means tested to be poor who is actually rich < as tax payers we are funding this.

          As for the grandparents, are you proposing they sell their house to move to let's say west sydney in a cheaper house so they have cash to splash, get hit and run by a bogan in a commodore while getting knifed and robbed? Are you kidding me? They have gone past the stage of splashing cash that's something we younger people do. They just want to live out their lives in a safe area and house they are familiar with near family, near the hospital and near their friends who are also nearly dead themselves in a house of fond memories. They are old fashioned made a commitment in the dark ages to get married buy a modest house in the suburbs near schools, have as many kids as they can possibly conceive and hopefully die in it, have their ashes sprinkled at the beach and pass the inheritance on to the children. Their pension sucks because they are as I said means tested and the outcome to bean counters and people like you are "rich". The pension would not be going to waste on people like this who have worked, paid taxes and contributed to society.

        • Incrediho on 06/05/2015 - 22:13
          +2

          @btdroppedbox:

          Paper trails exist, if the "relatives" can't reasonably account for why they can afford a $100,000 car, that still results in the same fraud inquiry. If it is some enormous conspiracy across numerous individuals, the risk of getting caught only grows. Without a legitimate front, it is extremely difficult to hide forever (and only getting harder). But whatever, those situations are a minority compared to the millionaire families who are raking in the same payments (for the pensioner grandparents and the youth allowance "living away from home" "independent" kids).

          You have a terribly outdated old fashioned (naive dare I say) "Christian values" view on society. Having and looking after a billion kids is selfless but NOT admirable. It is their choice, but if they are stretched thin because they couldn't stop popping them out, it doesn't make them more deserving. In this, the 21st Century, having enormous families is a burden on society (hilariously, the resulting overpopulation has a far greater economic and environmental burden than one dole bludger).

          If you are stereotyping the whole West as some kind of filthy criminal ghetto you are (1) ignorant (2) probably incredibly classist. But whatever, completely entitled to that erroneous opinion. I'll present a different case. SELL or REMORTGAGE the house, rent in the same neighborhood and still have million(s) in liquid assets. If you feel like the grandparents should be getting something from the government for all their years spent faithfully working and breeding, don't worry, they already in the form of generous super co-contributions. Paying a lot of money to live in a "nice" neighborhood and living modestly vs. living in a cheaper neighborhood and having more disposable income is a decision we all have to make. It's supply and demand 101 and I have a feeling strong you are an ardent fan of free-market capitalism.

          Sydney prices are cruel for everyone (albeit a lot harder on the poorer half), but that doesn't entitle you to pretend that a physical asset like a nice house in a great neighborhood can't be almost instantly converted into cash money that would put you well over the threshold for any reasonable pension. Also I have no sympathy for protecting an inheritance that basically dictates a genetic luck-of-the draw for one child living in effective poverty vs. luxury. But… I digress. IF YOU ARE SITTING ON ASSETS WORTH MILLIONS (in any form) YOU SHOULD NOT BE TAKING ANY PAYMENTS FROM CENTRELINK.

        • captobvious on 06/05/2015 - 22:31

          @Incrediho: Wow you sound incredibly young. Nothing is that straight forward. I wish I could live in the world you live in.

        • Incrediho on 06/05/2015 - 22:37

          @btdroppedbox:

          Damn right. It is a better place.

        • DavidFong on 10/05/2015 - 10:05

          @Incrediho:

          The mere fact that there are wealthy (in terms of, in my observation, having an outwardly lavish lifestyle) criminals whose income derived largely from entirely illegal activity (e.g. illicit drugs), are already well-known to the police (the person has done jail-time on a few occasions), demonstrates that the paper-trail is not as easy to prove as you might imagine. Or, if you have missed your calling, no-one is paying you or anyone else enough money and time to chase that paper-trail up thoroughly.

          For better or worse, the residence that a grandparent lives in is not assessable for taxation and most benefits purposes (however it is assessable under some circumstances if the grandparent moves into residential aged care). However, the investment property, which may have been purchased cheaply, might derive very little rent, but currently have a large capital value, is assessable.

        • DavidFong on 10/05/2015 - 10:11

          @Incrediho:

          '[naive] Christian values'?. There is a fair range of opinion within the serious Christian community, both the serious Christian business communities and the large, old and well-established Christian charitable organisations.

        • Incrediho on 10/05/2015 - 11:45

          @DavidFong:

          No, not everyone gets caught. But you just highlighted the fact that many have done jail time. And many would have had assets seized. It's not perfect, but the 'gangster' lifestyle is far less common here than in the USA for example. I would completely agree that there are numerous people who have thousands or tens of thousands in undeclared illicit income, but in terms of hundreds of thousands or millions… I think that is a whole lot rarer (in the "thug/drug dealer" world at least).

          I think we are both operating largely off anecdotal evidence to be fair, but I know for a fact in my circle of "friends" there are a far larger number of extremely wealthy families (with "legitimate" money) that are exploiting loopholes to obtain benefits payments for various family members. Which I think is just as despicable, but rarely draws the same ire (particularly from the members of this forum).

          I've already clearly outlined my perspective on why primary residence should be assessed. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right. The investment property is a given. Sell it spend that money (God forbid…) until you return below the limit.

          I'm not hating on Christians (particularly the more moderate Christians do many positive and charitable things for fellow Christians and non-Christians alike). But I do believe in the 21st century with an already overwhelming global population, the (traditional) Christian perspective on contraception and maximizing childbirth is extremely destructive to our future. That also applies to several other religions but they weren't the topic of discussion.

  • [Deactivated] on 05/05/2015 - 20:17
    -3

    This is so awful. If people want help managing their payment then great. But to force people to use it helps no-one except Coles and Woolworths. Please don't portray people on welfare as bludgers. Poor people overwhelmingly work harder and care more than those who have plenty of cash. And yes, living in a capitalist society, people are owed welfare, because the rich become rich by taking from the poor.

    • cktftw on 06/05/2015 - 15:18
      +6

      No, the rich dont become rich by taking from the poor.

      The rich become rich by working their arses off (yes, of course there's the few who are born into a rich family or strike the lotto). Even Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates had to work very hard before they became rich.

      I'm not rich, but I work hard as hell to support people like you. Now tell me, how have I taken anything from you? and how do you work harder than me?

      • ankor on 06/05/2015 - 23:10
        +1

        The idea is that your money before taxes and other benefits should already be his money. So you should be giving him some anyway.

      • ashikk on 07/05/2015 - 10:46

        well said!!!
        +1

      • [Deactivated] on 09/05/2015 - 20:46

        Lol what, you support people like me? I have a job and I pay taxes. I work bloody hard.
        The rich can only exist because there are poor people. That's the nature of capitalism. Australia is a rich country because it took land away from ask the first nation people. We're like the worst kind of tenet. The one who refuses to pay rent and refuses to leave.

        Reading this forum, there is so much hate and vitriol directed at poor people (or broke people, there's a difference). Anyone who speaks up and says "please treat poor people with respect", is told to go get a job.

  • outlander on 05/05/2015 - 22:27
    +1

    Lets be honest here, all the people who think those on welfare are lazy, wouldn't give a dime if the choice was theirs. So its hardly surprising they support any heavy handed actions, as they basically view these people as thieves.

    • Davros on 05/05/2015 - 23:09
      +10

      Rubbish.
      I am happy to pay for welfare as long as the money is spent appropriately.
      Shelter as in pay my rent before you piss it up against the wall
      Food as in feed the family before you piss it up against the wall
      Clothing as in make sure your family is adequately dressed and you are presentable for jobs before you piss it up against the wall

      I "had" tenants that were on welfare and more often than not when rent was late or not forthcoming at all its because they had pissed it up against the wall and not cheap plonk either, op bundy and cola cans, about the most expensive way of buying was their poison of choice and bongs.

      Why should I be happy that the money I provide is spent in this manner?

      • outlander on 06/05/2015 - 21:24
        -1

        You're happy to pay?
        Really.
        You are.
        Happy.
        To pay that is
        Somehow I don't think so. Nobody is ever 'happy' to pay. Not when the people you believe this money goes to are filthy scum who you find very frightening, and especially when it goes to those don't show any gratitude or recognition for the money. Who could be happy with that? We don't pay because we're happy to. We do it because it keeps our world running to our expectations, and because society runs along smoother by us doing it, which ultimately benefits us more than not paying would. As soon as you said your happy to pay, well, its hard to look at the rest of what you said as being truthful either.

        • Davros on 06/05/2015 - 22:02
          +6

          Yes, I am happy to pay to help those that TRULY need it.
          You should try a bit of altruism some time.

        • Ozimodo on 07/05/2015 - 11:13

          @outlander: What a ridiculous thing to say.

        • outlander on 07/05/2015 - 13:11

          @Ozimodo:
          Glad someone agrees with me.
          What people like davros don't understand is that everyone has flaws, and when you focus on the flaws you will never find someone that truly needs anything. The people you do see as being truly needy, will just be the ones who are better at playing their up their vulnerabilities.

          If altruism is what your preaching then you should try some self-interest. Stop seeing yourself as separate from the rest of the world, and try and realize that everything you send out is going to come back, if not to you then to one of your descendants. Its better for you and everyone that comes after you if you help people and at least give them a chance. The world isn't some big ocean you can just keep dumping your hate and malice into and never expect to see it again davros

        • littleDealFish on 10/05/2015 - 22:34

          @outlander: What do you propose is a solution though?

          Allow those people to continuously make bad choices, passing those same choices onto their offspring? or should we at least try and change/break the path. There is no denying these people NEED it, but it's the fact that some of them are taking advantage or simply just don't have the skills to manage their money. Impulse is the killer (specifically alcohol, which is heavily taxed, for good reason and would most certainly reduce their amount to pay for necessities like food & bills etc). Australians are in the 15th highest countries of alcohol consumption per capita, meaning very heavily taxed item that lots of people are buying, which means less money to spend on other things…

          It breaks my heart that the parent who is in control just doesn't know better at the expense of their kids. Budgeting and spending is taught by those around you (and ozbargain :P) and some of those people don't want to change/don't know how.

          I'll be the first person to look at the problem and go easier said than done (mental illness being the big issue here), but at least I can see this is a step in the RIGHT direction towards addressing the issue.

          Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of rich people that don't know how to spend either but we can agree the majority of them are not the ones being given the centrelink. Understand?

        • outlander on 11/05/2015 - 10:00

          @caseabrook:
          Oh no, I'm the asking the questions here. I've found you look a lot smarter asking the questions than dumbly not answering
          Its a cycle. They hate themselves so they try to do something to escape their reality. The things they do provide temporary relief, but end up making the situation worse, and so the cycle continues. Its a positive cycle. How do you break a self starting, regenerative positive cycle?
          Do you even want to? If these people are beyond (financially viable) help, is there a point?
          If your worried about 'welfare dynasties' being created, maybe start by education the children?
          Not this bullshit open-your-text-book-to-page-31, but a real world start to finish guide. Heres a green grocer. Here's $5. Go buy some carrots. Heres how you prepare carrots, heres how you cook carrots. That sort of thing.

          In the end being on welfare is like looking up the answers in the back on the maths book. You're not so much cheating the system, as you are cheating yourself.

    • Japius on 06/05/2015 - 06:44

      You'd think they'd be more grateful if as you say there are so many who would rather they got nothing. Hardly seems right that if someone is, against their better judgement, assisting you with a handout that you should complain about the manner it is given, simply do all you can do to get off welfare altogether.

  • cktftw on 06/05/2015 - 14:18
    +6

    The hardworking people work hard/smart, pay up to 45% of their income (yes, that's almost HALF of his/her hard earned money) to support some people who cant be arsed to work an honest day in their life.

    So why cant we, the hardworking people have some form of say to ensure the money are used sensibly.

    If you're truly someone who needs welfare, you shouldnt worry that the money is restricted to necessities, because that's where it's meant to go to.

    • [Deactivated] on 09/05/2015 - 20:51
      -1

      You could try voting for a government that is going to spend money making useful policies rather than criminalizing homelessness and spending your cash locking up refugees.

      • cktftw on 10/05/2015 - 14:55

        I will be voting for one who is balls enough to put in a system to save the current welfare system from abuse. It wont be popular but it's the right step to take. And also the one who is going to do something about the worsening nation debt.

  • edgar28 on 06/05/2015 - 14:59
    +2

    for academic sake, why not all the high earners take one year of no pay leave. Let's see how those people keep on scolding the "rich" for their hard/ smart work?

    remember the higher chain actually subsidize the lower chain

    Just try to be fair and appreciate part of the system for what we had now

    • Tragus on 07/05/2015 - 11:12
      +3

      I don't really understand your point here.

      • edgar28 on 07/05/2015 - 13:52
        +3

        Taxable income
        Tax on this income
        0 – $18,200
        Nil

        $18,201 – $37,000
        19c for each $1 over $18,200

        $37,001 – $80,000
        $3,572 plus 32.5c for each $1 over $37,000

        $80,001 – $180,000
        $17,547 plus 37c for each $1 over $80,000

        $180,001 and over
        $54,547 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000

        that's the way it is, the high earners help out to shape this country welfare. I'm not complaining, just to show we need to appreciate the system than keep on scolding the high earner who make this country.

        Don't keep on asking for "fairness".
        for example, 1 dollar earner pays 15cents tax, 2 dollars earner pays 60 cents tax, does the 2 dollars hardworking (not worksmart) people deserved to be taxed more? Think of those miners who risk their life for high pay compare to those work in office with low pay whinging high earners should pay more tax or CEO made certain stressful decision that might cause him lawsuit.

        if you think penalising hardworking people is fair, i have nothing more to say, but that's the way the system is, those who live in this country and enoying the welfare, be happy and stop complaining about high earners should contribute more. If you are not happy, look harder for other country? (I knew many have left the country because of high tax, how many talented people you all want to push away)

        • goosegog on 07/05/2015 - 15:12
          +2

          Unfortunately the ones who can afford to pay the high income bracket of tax are also the ones who can afford to pay a really high level accountant ( which is tax deductible ) to ensure that money is transferred to other places before the pittance of a remainder can be taxed.

        • edgar28 on 07/05/2015 - 15:20

          @goosegog:

          if it's by law, I have no issue with that. Without investment, the economy will collapse and there will be no country (not to mention any welfare). So the one suggest to increase corporate tax and cancelling all investment benefit is digging a big hole for the country.

          You need to attract more investment to generate more tax income for long term economy future.

          and economy cycle, recession - regulate the bank, booming - deregulate the bank.
          We used to have 4% RBA rate and bank loan at 6%, now RBA is 2% and bank loan is 5.7%

        • goosegog on 08/05/2015 - 13:55
          +4

          @edgar28: Who is talking investment here? My comments were directed towards the many well to do people who work the system to their own advantage through having the resources to pay financial institutions to direct their income to other places , so there is very little tax left to pay from the residual. You seem to think this is an acceptable situation. These " high flyers " are only moving their money around to finance themselves & their lifestyles. Please give an example of where these people are generating investment as opposed to lining their own pockets - continually - & within our own country, not overseas.

        • edgar28 on 08/05/2015 - 15:24

          @goosegog:
          I believed that is illegal to channel around to avoid tax.

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2945378/Elle-lot-mon…

  • Fishy on 06/05/2015 - 20:33
    +12

    First world problem. I'm originally from the country where welfare is almost nonexistent. You guys are pretty lucky.

  • Ozimodo on 07/05/2015 - 09:04
    +4

    Some of you dole recipients/supporters and your crazy arguments are starting to creep me out here…

  • Tragus on 07/05/2015 - 10:33

    If you don't like it, vote with your feet. Leave Centrelink and get a job. And don't bother whining about disability benefits, there are suitable jobs for the vast majority of people on DSP. It is usually a case that they are too proud/fussy/lazy to take them up.

    • [Deactivated] on 09/05/2015 - 20:55

      Well you're clearly not a disabled person

  • md491 on 07/05/2015 - 10:46

    Here is an interesting paper from 2010 on this subject
    http://www.welfarerights.org.au/sites/default/files/field_sh…

  • ashikk on 07/05/2015 - 10:56
    +3

    If you don't have a job and you are on welfare, first thing you do is STOP COMPLAINING on what you are getting and find a job.
    If you had a job and you didn't save some cash for rainy day then it is your PROBLEM not TAX PAYERS!
    If you are on DSP then use your savings first and then your Super and after that Centerlink. This way I don't have any problem.

  • lnq on 07/05/2015 - 14:47
    -1

    DICTATION will not work, and it will never WORK. It was proved in thousand years.
    I can see Australia Economy going down deeper. When small business shops will closing down more, because less people having CASH to spend on.
    It will kill the whole base of small business, and lead to the bigger disaster. Big business benefit from this, lead to higher price and dominate
    the whole market, you can imaging what will happen next. When people stuck with their lives, they will do anything you cant imagine,
    when SOCIAL is corrupted, it will lead to a big REVOLUTION.

    • [Deactivated] on 07/05/2015 - 16:01
      +1

      Please include references. We'll wait.

      • lnq on 08/05/2015 - 13:19

        This video will sum it up:
        https://www.ted.com/talks/nick_hanauer_beware_fellow_plutocr…

        Beware, fellow plutocrats, the pitchforks are coming!

        Nick Hanauer is a rich guy, an unrepentant capitalist — and he has something to say to his fellow plutocrats: Wake up! Growing inequality is about to push our societies into conditions resembling pre-revolutionary France. Hear his argument about why a dramatic increase in minimum wage could grow the middle class, deliver economic prosperity … and prevent a revolution.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/05/2015 - 00:41
          -1

          I think you're going into the territory of socio economics and wages. It's quite distinctively different from welfare and even more so from welfare management.

        • lnq on 10/05/2015 - 18:40

          Different names, same principle. It all about dealing with people. And in australia, the people here left almost to nothing, so its even worst.

  • atasnatas on 07/05/2015 - 19:46
    +3

    This is an incredibly complex issue.

    On one hand, I have a significant debt with Centrelink due to my Mother not alerting Centrelink when I ceased study four years ago. The money did not go toward my care, as my Nan had taken me in. My Mother also moved in my Nan when she had nowhere to go (which has caused the issue with appealing), but my Nan was providing for both of us. After stating I was unaware of the payment and it was not used for its intended purpose, the initial verdict I received is that I have the debt because I didn't alert Centrelink. I was a minor, never consented to a claim being made in my name and was completely unaware of the payment until a couple of months ago. Debt cannot be transferred, so I either get a ruling in my favor or I'm stuck paying it off. What bothers me is that: a) the ruling wasn't that my claim could not be proven, but rather that it's my fault I didn't tell them and b) I'm considered responsible despite not having done anything wrong.

    I had just been diagnosed with a chronic, incurable neurological disorder that has stolen my ability to lead a normal life. I go to Centrelink, ashamed, for the first time in my life to seek interim resources while I get assessed and seek support for what I'm even capable of now and I was faced with this huge mess. To say the system is flawed would be an understatement.

    I imagine Centrelink has to deal with cases like this quite often, where it's very hard to prove anything and people get punished for other people's mistakes. Often, people who are struggling just living as they are, let alone with a fight on their shoulders. I also imagine a lot of people who have debt they're responsible for have weaselled their way out of it. A lot of resources would go into that and a lot of people like myself end up thrown under the bus, plus Centrelink itself having to foot the bill with a ruling in the customer's favor. There's always someone who loses in these situations. Straight cash is a dangerous tool in the wrong hands. Most people on benefits don't want to be (which can come along with feelings of shame and disappointment in oneself, which is a slippery slope) and of those that do, there's a sense of entitlement and that isn't a path to responsible spending either. The misuse of funds certainly can wreck havoc, there's no doubt about it.

    On the other hand, having only specified outlets is problematic for a number of reasons. Having Centrelink pay rent and bills on your behalf, deducting from your payment, seems like a great idea until you consider the resources involved. Almost every single person who goes onto welfare encounters conflicting instructions, outright incorrect instructions and glitches in the system. It terrifies me to consider the prospect of Centrelink being responsible for whether or not my rent and bills are correctly paid on time. Plus, it's through businesses. I'm renting via a private landlord, so could I even keep my lease going? Would Centrelink affiliate with certain providers that I would have to switch to? Can you buy from Coles and Woolworths, but not your local green grocer? What about dentists? Buying replacement parts for a PC you need for study? Medical specialists? Pharmacies? It would be really hard for independent businesses to become verified. Even with the supposed 70% necessities, 30% other split, I feel like small businesses would ultimately suffer and people on benefits would struggle because they'd misplace their card, have Centrelink say it's two weeks until they can get a new one and they can't afford food or vital medication. There are too many questions and bad potential outcomes with The Basics Card.

    As for the new card that is simply an EFTPOS card that can't be used to buy alcohol or gamble, I just don't understand how that works. Nor can I find anything that explains it. The idea of a card that can be used for anything other than obviously-misuse purposes sounds great, but I can't get my head around how it would function to that standard in reality. Plus, it would carry the same issue of losing the physical card or having it stolen. Plus, what if you do everything right and want to buy your Mum some wine for Mother's Day? Or cheap sparkling wine to surprise your partner on Valentine's Day? There are people whose weekly $10 Yellowglen, odd $2 scratchie or $3.60 QuickPick are the only little joys they have to keep them going. It's unfortunate that a pensioner who's all alone and finds comfort in little things like that could be punished for it. But how on Earth do you draw the line?

    I think the main thing is that Centrelink benefits are not a free ride. I can't afford more than rent, medication, food and bills with the infrequent side of having to buy new shoes because a hole means my sock has direct contact with the wet ground. I don't drink, smoke or engage in any kind of hedonistic spending. I don't even buy food when I'm out, instead packing lunches. This is because my major priority is doing my best to never have nothing spare, as I know I'm going to need my wisdom teeth out, at some point I'm going to need new glasses and things like that. If you're on benefits and you're not living on bare minimum with perhaps the odd treat, then it should be abundantly clear from your Centrelink visits that something is up. I think the current system of focusing on areas where welfare abuse is abundant is justifiable, but even then, there must be people suffering for mistakes that aren't their own. It's just really tough establishing what system objectively causes the least amount of disadvantage to people doing the right thing, whilst keeping others on the straight and narrow.

    • edgar28 on 07/05/2015 - 23:16

      U under estimated eftpos and credit card. Everything we buy using them are recorded and data log for marketing. Those who abuse will get warning then banned with alcohol and gambling. Three strike system. Technology is advance enough. There's always solution

  • Twodogs on 08/05/2015 - 12:58
    +3

    Wow im quite surprised of how much animosity is aimed at those on welfare payments " im one " … do you think if welfare is abolished the government would lessen you tax bill ? , do you think people like myself " nerve damage in lower spine " deserve to suffer even more ?

    Do you think if this card thing comes in that drug addicts and alcholics will miraculously quit the habit or are they just going to steal your car , break into your house and think nothing of sticking a knife in you just so they can get a fix ?

    As they say be careful what you wish for.

    • ausmechkeyboards on 08/05/2015 - 14:02
      +4

      The majority of people here are not exactly the light bulbs of society. We'll just see a stronger barter system come out of this for the alcoholics and drug users who abuse the system, not some sort of reduction. The only ones hurt from this are those who are not abusing it.

      • Twodogs on 08/05/2015 - 17:58
        +1

        I agree funded drunks and drug addicts are a drain on society , i just think its risky " ice is a huge problem in vic " making them find another way to get a fix worries me.

        Also one thing about pensioners and newstart the money is very very low , which means " druggies aside " the money goes straight back into the system when they buy food etc etc so the money is in reality just getting recycled.

      • [Deactivated] on 09/05/2015 - 20:33

        Rich people will be fine. They're the ones abusing the system.

  • KaTst3R on 08/05/2015 - 13:59
    +2

    I once met someone who was on welfare who made a day 1 purchase of a new ipad air…I got a full time paying job and I dont even own an ipad ! People who are on welfare should only be entitled to the most basic neccesity, i.e. proper food (no booze), health care, rent, bills, no BS to get the latest iphone 6 or ipad, no 4K tvs or an i7 overclocked with a Titan X. There must be a separate entity that monitors the spending.

    You all can downvote me all you want, but TLDR if you want luxury, go get a job 'cause the rest of the hardworking taxpayers aint paying for your new iphones.

    • edgar28 on 08/05/2015 - 15:30
      +1

      I encountered the same situation, just that the person bought iphone 6 than ipad.
      I don't have ipad and iphone, for the specification it's just too expensive/ luxury for the price.

      • KaTst3R on 08/05/2015 - 16:39
        +1

        I know, it is frustrating.

        The person I mentioned above claimed that his family shifted their assets offshore so they can meet the requirements for the asset test (not sure true or not but i take it at face value). The social benefit system is a comprehensive one, but with minimal monitoring, people will try to game the system. That is why i feel sad that not all of my tax money is going to someone who actually needs help.

      • hairy1egs on 08/05/2015 - 18:34
        +1

        Umm an unemployed person only gets about $500 per fortnight. How much is an iphone 6 $1000 are you telling furrfy's here?

        • edgar28 on 08/05/2015 - 18:49

          unemployed does not stop you from using a credit card and pay high interest (worse would be stealing - from another post)

          i was surprise seeing ppl owe credit card so much and paying 17.99% interest

          and many gone into bankrupcy for not paying off credit cards

        • hairy1egs on 08/05/2015 - 18:51
          +1

          @edgar28:
          Tell me 1 credit card company that will issue a credit card to an single unemployed person?

        • edgar28 on 08/05/2015 - 18:55

          @hairy1egs:

          all banks etc……. my ex colleague who got redundancy and unemployed for 12 months kept all his 10 credit cards. Applying for assistance.

          and u assumed all ppl are honest here declaring no income whatsoever. some banks can be very relax (or agent)

        • KaTst3R on 09/05/2015 - 02:13

          @hairy1egs that is exactly my point. U apply for social benefit and you don't get alot by today's living standard. So how would someone like this afford expensive products? So it means the person is on credit or not poor at all to start with. I have seen real live cases of relatively well to do but unemployed people that are on social welfare. That frustrates me…

        • edgar28 on 09/05/2015 - 10:49

          @KaTst3R:

          yes. saw some with beamer and merc too….. staying in government support property

    • marieviv on 09/05/2015 - 22:59
      +1

      This is so true. Some of our closest friends and relatives are Dole and DSP recipients who own the latest Apple devices. I have often wondered how this could be possible on a meagre pension. It is just not worth your time and energy to work hard anymore when other people have lifestyles you can only dream about.

  • SydStrand on 09/05/2015 - 15:42
    +3

    Why even argue over this? Welfare management is unenforceable. People will always want to get high or drunk, and regardless if you pay them in cash or food stamps, the ones who want to do it will find a way through cashing cheques, pawn shops, prepaid card, etc. As someone who was on some form of Centrelink for a few years during study and after, I think the demonisation of welfare recipients is shocking. Yes, there are and always will be cheats but is has there ever been a single credible study that suggests that this is anything but a tiny minority? All we have is anecdotal data ('I know a guy who knows a guy who's on Centrelink, but has 2 jetskis and lobsters for dinner')… or people watching ACA or Struggle Street.

    Welfare management is a slippery moral slope. While you'll find plenty of support against spending on the usual vices (alcohol, tobacco, drugs), where do you stop? In the USA, several states are moving towards recreational veto rights from the understandable (strip clubs) to not so much (theatres). This isn't giving people a hand, it's patronising and shaming them into believing that they are deemed so financially irresponsible and untrustworthy, that they can't catch a goddamn movie. Kansas is moving to exclude welfare recipients from accessing public pools, which is somehow even more callous given that poverty is often divided along racial lines, the history of segregated pools, and high rates of childhood drowning within black communities. Welfare cheats are like fleas; they're not as big a problem as people fear, but won't easily go away either. There are avenues to report suspected welfare fraud and people should use them, but broad laws that dictate what's appropriate to spend welfare money on (especially when those things are chosen by affluent politicians), is not the answer.

  • [Deactivated] on 09/05/2015 - 20:35
    +1

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cartoon/2014/jun/16…

    Here's a cartoon

  • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2015 - 14:11

    We need more jobs than workers, this also helps the workers to move around and have mobility.
    Current workers will also be happy.

  • littleDealFish on 10/05/2015 - 22:01
    +2

    MY god it does make me wonder how people really have no clue…

    I'll tell you a story oh overly entitled ones. Not long after i finished my degree i decided to go on a work visa to Canada. Their $ is very close to ours so a good example. These guys work on a minimum wage of $8.00, have nothing like the welfare support like we are given, and still manage to be some of the hardest working, nicest people i've ever met. Before you mention living costs, Vancouver 1 bdrm cost me $2500 a month, eating out was close to $10-$15 CAD, phone was more expensive and you paid for INCOMING calls. Only thing cheaper was internet…

    Please open your eyes, or at least travel outside of Australia to see how lucky we are.

    Welfare is a gift, and like any should be treated wisely.

    • cktftw on 13/05/2015 - 21:36
      +1

      That's the problem, welfare comes to cheaply, so people keep asking for more and more and have a sense of entitlement. They forget it's a privilege that's absent in most parts of the world where if you dont work you dont eat, simple as that.

  • jaybmate on 10/05/2015 - 23:00
    -1

    This thread is funny

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join