Australians are "welfare addicts"
- Thread starter Jamie
- Start date
I don't think the point of "work for dole" is to create slave labour. As I see it, the purpose is twofold -
1) stop people thinking they can sit back and live off the dole forever and do nothing in return (ie dolebludgers)
2) maybe teach people some new skills that they can use to find work.
I would like to say that I'm not implying that all long term unemployed are dolebludgers, but there's no doubt that there's an element who are quite happy to take it for as long as it's handed out.
If someone is on work for the dole for a pittance, my advice would be, well, you know the answer - go get a job that compensates you to the level you require. I know a number of business owners who find it incredibly difficult to get staff to do the more menial jobs, and I've even heard one ... well, sorry, but I'm going to call him a dolebludger!... say that he wasn't going to dirty his hands doing x when he was getting money from the government to do nothing. He's exactly the sort of person who needs to work for the dole to give him a kick up the proverbial.
1) stop people thinking they can sit back and live off the dole forever and do nothing in return (ie dolebludgers)
2) maybe teach people some new skills that they can use to find work.
I would like to say that I'm not implying that all long term unemployed are dolebludgers, but there's no doubt that there's an element who are quite happy to take it for as long as it's handed out.
If someone is on work for the dole for a pittance, my advice would be, well, you know the answer - go get a job that compensates you to the level you require. I know a number of business owners who find it incredibly difficult to get staff to do the more menial jobs, and I've even heard one ... well, sorry, but I'm going to call him a dolebludger!... say that he wasn't going to dirty his hands doing x when he was getting money from the government to do nothing. He's exactly the sort of person who needs to work for the dole to give him a kick up the proverbial.
ThommoThommo said:
I referred to the benefits including treatment provisions as being the world's best. Lots better than the Yanks and Brits. Infinitely better than the many nations that do not discriminate and provide long term entitlements to veterans. We should recognise where we have superior conditions.
I'm not sure that recent Governments have done much for veterans except for pollies to strut the world stage during commemorations. Commemorations are good photo opportunities. Sad for the victims and their survivors though.
I'd say that WW1 and WW2 veterans did better than those involved in the many 'observer', adviser' or 'police action' participations we have had in wars since. All governments dragged the chain accepting 'war caused' disability for conflicts outside of the major world wars. However, damage sustained is damage sustained regardless of the labelling of the participation.
For example, both sides of government were very slow and grudging in their acceptance of 'war caused' claims by Vietnam veterans. The RSL treated them very badly too for years through not adequately representing them - that is, until recently when the RSL clubs started to run out of patrons through natural attrition. But then the RSLs did not allow women (ex-war service) members full rights either.
The chicken hawk industrialists and politicians should be put first in the front line, rather than the kids.
Lplate
Benefits abuse is not just an Aussie problem and there are more generous systems: my working Dutch friends rant (in a very right-on way) about their system that I believe pays you initially about 80% of your previous salary if you go on benefits after you've been working a few years (so a lot of young people just work til they've satisfied the requirements and then stop til the level of their benefits drop below what they consider acceptible).
Here in the UK it is not worth entering very low paid, casual work if you have a lot of children as you will easily do better on benefits. But the unemployment benefit doesn't buy you much of a life, esp compared with Australia.
With sickness benefits, I think a lot of the problems in Australia are due to the lack of continuity in and competing nature of the health system. If one GP doesn't sign you off sick, then you just trip along to the next one, so there is a financial incentive for GPs to just do as they're asked and many do (greed, lack of scruples and a feeling that it is pointless or not their job to try to police the system). Needs revamping, but keep the Workcover.
Recently had contact with a large number of Afghan refugees and every one was working - doing jobs that a lot of the local population would turn down. Same when I previously had contact with new refugees from Monserat in the Caribbean. They had no concept of using the system as they had no system where they came from.
IMHO War Vets are often also victims in that there is a whole industry (DVA, esp their psychiatrists) with a vested interest in making them play the sick role and stay in it (feel quite strongly about this as have family & friends who have been led into leading sad, meaningless, albeit easy, lives as TPIs when they are probably depressed from losing their jobs). That said the UK system is crap to Vets - I met a Spitfire pilot in his 90s who was shot down & badly burned & has received a pittance of a pension and certainly no special healthcare.
The benefits system can cripple people and many in it are victims, often second-generation, rather than abusers -addicted in that sense maybe. Definitely saw that in the outback. Overall I am ambivalent about it, but I think the Aussie system has a lot going for it. I don't think most Aussies are any more welfare-addicted than most westernised nations.
Here in the UK it is not worth entering very low paid, casual work if you have a lot of children as you will easily do better on benefits. But the unemployment benefit doesn't buy you much of a life, esp compared with Australia.
With sickness benefits, I think a lot of the problems in Australia are due to the lack of continuity in and competing nature of the health system. If one GP doesn't sign you off sick, then you just trip along to the next one, so there is a financial incentive for GPs to just do as they're asked and many do (greed, lack of scruples and a feeling that it is pointless or not their job to try to police the system). Needs revamping, but keep the Workcover.
Recently had contact with a large number of Afghan refugees and every one was working - doing jobs that a lot of the local population would turn down. Same when I previously had contact with new refugees from Monserat in the Caribbean. They had no concept of using the system as they had no system where they came from.
IMHO War Vets are often also victims in that there is a whole industry (DVA, esp their psychiatrists) with a vested interest in making them play the sick role and stay in it (feel quite strongly about this as have family & friends who have been led into leading sad, meaningless, albeit easy, lives as TPIs when they are probably depressed from losing their jobs). That said the UK system is crap to Vets - I met a Spitfire pilot in his 90s who was shot down & badly burned & has received a pittance of a pension and certainly no special healthcare.
The benefits system can cripple people and many in it are victims, often second-generation, rather than abusers -addicted in that sense maybe. Definitely saw that in the outback. Overall I am ambivalent about it, but I think the Aussie system has a lot going for it. I don't think most Aussies are any more welfare-addicted than most westernised nations.
Aceyducey said:
No offence Acey, but I rest my case. How someone who can afford to own multiple properties can still qualify for any form of government assistance at all while children starve on the streets simply defies all logic.
Absolutely. You want more pay, get a real job. I'd have no problem working for the dole (providing you have time to attend interviews etc - say working 4 days a week or something. Besides, there's documented evidence that working provides a list of mental / physical rewards anyway.
Hmm. I've trouble with this. My children are at school and my wife does parent helper at the school etc. Is the gov't going to now have to pay someone to do this - with what ?!?! And then provide more child care places afterwards? Shortsighted when it's a family situation - unless you compensate by taxing the income earner less. Do need to do something about 'lifestyle mums' .
More heathly, but more things are now diasbilities - esp mental issues.
No argument here - provided the gov't gets it right in the first place.
Well this would fix some of the issues anyway. How about they stop taking from me to give my wife, with the associated overheads in between !!!
Hmmm. For some - maybe the low skilled need less welfare to encourage them to work.
Yes.
I still find it amazing that today it's all about encouraging mums back to work, rather than raising a family. Sacrificing your personal desires to raise the family in my mind is so much more worthy.... Kids have someone they can come home to. A sick child can be collected from school without a major drama. Parents can help out at school (OK only some do I know).
Sending mums back means you now have to provide more kinder, day care, school care, holiday programs etc etc etc I'd hate to think of the overall cost to send a mum back to work, not to mention mum has to part-pay for the childcare also !!!
Maybe if being a mum was more valued, we wouldn't have quite the problem we have at the moment with a negligible birthrate.....
Then again, how about we get really radical? Fix the bloody system!
A flat rate tax, which kicks in after a preset FAMILY threshold.
(eg Single person $20,000, couple $40,000), and a flat rate that doesn't discourage you from earning money (say 25% or something like that). Making it simple and cheaper would also discourage people setting up complex structures just to 'regulate' income. Of course, doing this would also allow the removal of a whole range of 'employed welfare' like the top ups they have to give you since they tax you too much in the first place. A flat rate is something that when people get a payrise, they dont go up a bracket and lose half in tax....
Nah, stuff that, lets ust add another hundred or so pages to the tax code and tighten another 'loophole', or tax somteting new....
natmarie73 said:
It may defy logic, but the bulk of government expenditure, no matter how worthy, has NEVER gone to the neediest. Just like the income tax system is biased against average PAYE earners and in favour of those in business or investment with smart accountants who can claim a multitude of deductions.
Even where it is explicitly directed to help the needy, if you follow the dollars it ends up employing more public servants, welfare workers, etc. Though that's not to say that giving it straight to the needy themselves will necessarily produce better outcomes. Especially if they don't spend it the way 'we' think they should, and lead virtuous non-drinking non-gambling non-smoking lives in the suburbs!
Think of who has the most political influence to get the subsidies, payments or tax concessions they want. It certainly ain't the poor!
In a society where most see themselves as 'middle class', governments are reluctant to cut 'middle-class welfare'.
And we're not just talking about cash payments in the form of welfare benefits only. Other examples of payments that could be regarded as 'middle class welfare' include:
* Public institutions such as higher education, the ABC, opera, libraries and art galleries receive government support, even though their direct beneficiaries are disproportionately drawn from the middle and upper classes. Thus you could argue that publicly funding them is regressive. Apart from the cultural benefits, you could argue that these institutions can facilitate self-education and social mobility to all who choose to use them, so a strong case exists for public funding.
* Industry regulation, protection and subsidies, including R&D funding
* Some tax concessions (the poor just get dole checks from the government, the rich get theirs, but they have more dignified names - 'industry adjustment subsidies' or 'tax concessions')
Focussing benefits on the very needy only would not necessarily improve their lot long-term. It would produce a more residual social welfare system, much like exists in the United States. Political support for it would be lower than a more universal system which benefits a broader cross-section of the community (an example is Medicare, which despite its problems is a very popular program).
Tighter welfare targetting may mean that instead of stopping at maybe $40-60k per year a family payment may stop at $20k pa, so that a new grouping of have nots is created and incentives between welfare and work due to the perverse interaction between tax, wage rates and social security payments.
However a system that's too universal or too generous (eg workers comp in some European countries) means high taxes and another set of perverse incentives that penalise work and reward bludging. And when taxes are too high people have an incentive to beat them, leading to the rich (successfully) beating them and people on very average PAYE incomes carrying more of the burden.
Regards, Peter
I did work for the dole a few years back. It was alright - I worked out I was getting paid about 10 bucks an hour after tax. So it's not bad. But this welfare thing really gets up my nose.
"I am the youngest of 5 children and grew up in a family where welfare was the major (at many times the only) source of income. Needless to say, money was very tight when I was growing up. From 1980 we lived in a Housing Commission home which my parents still occupy. No phone (until 1987) and no car.
My father was on an invalid pension & my mother on a wife's pension.
With the assistance of the pension and (later) Austudy all 5 children finished Year 12 (the NSW Higher School Certificate) at a public school and went onto university.
The five children are, in order of age (oldest to youngest):
- Acting Deputy Principal at a Central School in Western NSW
- Senior Rehabilation Consultant with a Commonwealth Authority
- Senior Grade Oncology Nurse at a large private hospital
- Acting Principal at an Independant School
- and the 5th has delusions of adequacy when it comes to being an Economist.
My father readily concedes that he is not a wealthy man, though he says he has no regrets and "considers himself a millionaire 5 times over" given that none of his children have any drug dependancy issues / history of violence / criminal records.
Of course, you know that Mark Latham grew up in a housing commission home?"
To those of you that are all too ready to attack welfare recipients as lazy bludgers who always have their hand out, stick THAT in your pipe and smoke it.
I know there are people who abuse the system, but there are far more people who truly rely on welfare to get by. You want a society like the US where crime is rampant and a number of the people committing crimes are trying to just make a living? It's easy to sit back and tsk tsk everyone else, but try living like that for six months and see how you feel.
Besides, if you want to attack the true welfare cheats, the ones that scam the most, how about pointing your fingers at the big corporations instead of the people on the dole?
"I am the youngest of 5 children and grew up in a family where welfare was the major (at many times the only) source of income. Needless to say, money was very tight when I was growing up. From 1980 we lived in a Housing Commission home which my parents still occupy. No phone (until 1987) and no car.
My father was on an invalid pension & my mother on a wife's pension.
With the assistance of the pension and (later) Austudy all 5 children finished Year 12 (the NSW Higher School Certificate) at a public school and went onto university.
The five children are, in order of age (oldest to youngest):
- Acting Deputy Principal at a Central School in Western NSW
- Senior Rehabilation Consultant with a Commonwealth Authority
- Senior Grade Oncology Nurse at a large private hospital
- Acting Principal at an Independant School
- and the 5th has delusions of adequacy when it comes to being an Economist.
My father readily concedes that he is not a wealthy man, though he says he has no regrets and "considers himself a millionaire 5 times over" given that none of his children have any drug dependancy issues / history of violence / criminal records.
Of course, you know that Mark Latham grew up in a housing commission home?"
To those of you that are all too ready to attack welfare recipients as lazy bludgers who always have their hand out, stick THAT in your pipe and smoke it.
I know there are people who abuse the system, but there are far more people who truly rely on welfare to get by. You want a society like the US where crime is rampant and a number of the people committing crimes are trying to just make a living? It's easy to sit back and tsk tsk everyone else, but try living like that for six months and see how you feel.
Besides, if you want to attack the true welfare cheats, the ones that scam the most, how about pointing your fingers at the big corporations instead of the people on the dole?
Mark
You are right.
Prejudicial statements are often put forward as facts:
However, sometimes people can get sucked in where they themselves have a pre-disposition towards the particular prejudice. Then there are the clever orators, wordsmiths and spin-doctors who derive secondary gain from leading others into prejudicial beliefs.
The bigotry can be cloaked with rationalisations to make it more convincing, but it is all aimed at avoiding frankness and rational debate. You are supposed to suspend your judgement and accept the tripe being put forward.
What about some of these prejudicial statements masquerading as accepted truths beyond question
To these could be added the assertion that Australians are addicted to welfare..(they are).....junkies (for welfare).' This is attention-seeking, self-indulgent bulldust and it should be regarded as such.
I once read that 'The difference between a conviction and a prejudice is that you can explain a conviction without getting angry'. It follows that bigots seek proof of their beliefs everywhere. I work with someone who has a 'thing' about public servants. Of course wherever he goes and in whatever he does he finds a multitude of ignorant, lazy, self-interested, fat cat public servants. Amazing! Get a life!
Of course there are some people who are allergic to work, however many do want better for themselves and their family but cannot find the way.
Lplate
You are right.
Prejudicial statements are often put forward as facts:
- Aboriginals are lazy;
- men are adulterers; and
- Catholics can't be trusted.
However, sometimes people can get sucked in where they themselves have a pre-disposition towards the particular prejudice. Then there are the clever orators, wordsmiths and spin-doctors who derive secondary gain from leading others into prejudicial beliefs.
The bigotry can be cloaked with rationalisations to make it more convincing, but it is all aimed at avoiding frankness and rational debate. You are supposed to suspend your judgement and accept the tripe being put forward.
What about some of these prejudicial statements masquerading as accepted truths beyond question
- women can't plan their financial future;
- Baby boomers are spendthrifts;
- young people don't save;
- unemployed people are dole bludgers;
- poor people can't budget;
- students are lazy;
- men are responsible for domestic violence; and
- baby Boomers are a future drain on the economy.
To these could be added the assertion that Australians are addicted to welfare..(they are).....junkies (for welfare).'
This is attention-seeking, self-indulgent bulldust and it should be regarded as such.I once read that 'The difference between a conviction and a prejudice is that you can explain a conviction without getting angry'. It follows that bigots seek proof of their beliefs everywhere. I work with someone who has a 'thing' about public servants. Of course wherever he goes and in whatever he does he finds a multitude of ignorant, lazy, self-interested, fat cat public servants. Amazing! Get a life!
Of course there are some people who are allergic to work, however many do want better for themselves and their family but cannot find the way.
Lplate
Lplate said:
I agree Lplate
I did a course about 10 years back, which covered a concept on how our brains work -the Reticular Activating System.
Essentially, you see what you look for.
One night after the course, the facilitator said, okay, I want everyone to look for a Chrysler Charger on the way home tonight ( and this was before they became "classic".
I said, yeah sure - I don't like our chances.
I saw 2.
We build amazing filter systems to help us cope with the vast amount of "information" we see/hear everyday, and its easier to be able to put everything into the particular folders we have have created in our mind..and ignore the rest.
Some people just have more folders than others
GarryK
GarryK
Well said Lplate!
That was also the meaning behind my post about family benefits
Unfortunately many humans spend more time rationalising than thinking.
Many find it more comforting to believe rather than to understand. Personally I can understand the comfort in this reaction - it removes the personal responsibility for failures and injustices.
Cheers,
Aceyducey
That was also the meaning behind my post about family benefits
Unfortunately many humans spend more time rationalising than thinking.
Many find it more comforting to believe rather than to understand. Personally I can understand the comfort in this reaction - it removes the personal responsibility for failures and injustices.
Cheers,
Aceyducey
Similar threads
