Cashless Welfare Card

[moonflyte]

Could this be the end of the tragedy of alcohol fueled violence and child neglect.

A cashless welfare card aimed at stemming alcohol abuse would be rolled out across the country under a welfare reform the Turnbull government is considering taking to the election.

As regional trouble spots line up to be chosen for trials of the government’s new Healthy Welfare Card to begin next month, The Australian understands the Coalition may seek an election mandate to extend the card to welfare recipients across regional Australia if they achieve positive results.

Under the new system — proposed by mining magnate ­Andrew Forrest in his review of the welfare system in 2014 — 80 per cent of a person’s government payment would be ­quarantined to a bank card that could not be used to buy alcohol and gambling products, nor ­converted to cash.

The remaining 20 per cent could be accessible as cash.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/national-cashless-welfare-card-plan-by-turnbull-gov...

[morgana2408]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@bluecat*poledancing wrote:

A one size fits all approach does not, and will not, work. as there are so many layers when in comes alcohol and substance abuse.

Obviously, the one size fits all approach is not working, otherwise there would be no need for the cashless card in areas where welfare benefits enable rampant drug and alcohol abuse and domestic violence is rampant.

Addicts will do whatever it takes in which to feed their addiction and a cashless card has the potential to exascerbate the problem.

You're right, addicts will do whatever it takes, but that doesn't mean the taxpayer should fuel their addiction. Part of the addiction was begun by ready access to welfare cash. Drug dealers and liquor retailers specifically target welfare dependants. 

Oh, as for the "us and them " catchcry, "taxpayers money", well,  those of us on benefits are also taxpayers.

Which means the taxpayer is being fleeced twice. 

Government should not have to onforward tax revenue from welfare recipients to fund substance abuse by other welfare recipients. 

---

---

While I don't believe that welfare should be spent on addition at the expense of families. I think this approach  is too simplistic. As addicts will find ways to get their substance, a cashless card will drive up break ins and thefts as the addicts try to find the cash for their addition. I think DV and child abuse needs to be deal with as  a whole society.

[jimmy*part4]

---

@***super_nova*** wrote:

---

@djilukjilly wrote:

There's some things you just don't reply to.

This is an important reform and needed to be done decades ago but no government was game to go near it but now that the welfare budget is nearly as big as the health budget something has to be done and to safeguard the disadvantaged with a safety net which is what the government is trying to do.

---

This reform will put more money in the coffers of Coles and Woolworth and take the money away from smaller businesses.  Pensioners in this country are already some of the poorest in the western world, and this will plunge them even deeper into poverty.  Australia is a rich country, and we should be ashamed of ourselves.  Trying to compete with USA who can treat disadvantaged  people worse is disgusting.  And by the way, drug and alcohol addiction is an illness, if it would be treated as such instead of criminalising drug use, lots of the problems could also be minimised.  In any case the drug addicts will find a way around it;

---

Once again using a backhanded bash at the US to make a point, eh.

I'd say "disadvantaged" people here have it a bit too cushie. I see them driving around in new cars (with their disabled placard hanging from the rear view mirror), parked in their driveways, at their well mancured homes....never having to work. Parking in the disabled parking spots in front of every store, watching them get out and stroll effortlessly into the store.

Meanwhile..me, a hard working guy parks my used car way off in the parking lot and walk all the way with my feet that ache from being on them all day working hard...pull into my driveway, a home that I'll struggle to keep up on repairs and payments for many years to come.

So stop using the USA as an example for every point you are trying to make...you obviously know little about what it's like here. From reading here, it appears conditions here are about the same as there. Much more similarities than differences.

From my days having to conduct business at the welfare office....90% of the people there...very large. They weren't starving, that was obvious. And the few thin ones looked like drug abusers, some of the fat ones too, lol.

Milking the welfare system is rampant.

[lyndal1838]

---

@chameleon54 wrote:

---

The fact that the leaders of several indiginous communities where substance abuse is crippling families and the wider community have reportedly asked to have the scheme introduced indicates they believe it may help. Noel Pearson ( someone I have a lot of time for ) has also expressed support for this type of scheme.    

---

 So if it is good for several indiginous communities it is good for everybody?

Sorry, but I don't think so.

For years we have been throwing money and services and housing and everything else at indiginous communities and no good seems to come of it.

Let's face it, not everyone lives in "communities" as the indiginous people.  If their leader/elders believe this system will help their people then by all means try it.....and see it fail, as so many of these experiments have.

But why expect everyone to toe the line. It is a vastly different thing to live in a suburban society where everyone is different and has different needs to living in a "community" where everyone is experiencing the same problems and most of them are on welfare of some sort.

I can't see the problem with people being asked to show their pension cards to get discounts etc.  It seems to be normal these days.

My husband and I are in our 70s and usually get funny looks when asked for our pension cards and answer that we are not on a pension.

[jimmy*part4]

---

@***super_nova*** wrote:

---

@djilukjilly wrote:

This reform will take money away from drug dealers and grog sellers, what's wrong with that.

---

How?  if druggie does not have enough money they will rob somebody or grow more dope to sell.

---

That kind of thinking is along the same lines as battered wife syndrome...blaming the victim instead of the abuser.

(I know there is a better example, but can't think of it atm)

All the other arguments aside...this is a terrible one. Using that logic, why not just give cash to convicted drug dealers if they agree not to rob anyone, lol.

At least a better argument could be made for legalizing drugs, taking the cash out of the dealers pockets.

[morgana2408]

How did you come up with that argument. It makes no sense. If someone is truly addicted they will find a way to fund the addiction. That was the point of the post. People who use illegal drugs quite often resort to criminal activities to fund their addictions. A better way to deal with addiction is to actually deal and treat the addiction and abuse.

[jimmy*part4]

---

@morgana2408 wrote:

How did you come up with that argument. It makes no sense. If someone is truly addicted they will find a way to fund the addiction. That was the point of the post. People who use illegal drugs quite often resort to criminal activities to fund their addictions. A better way to deal with addiction is to actually deal and treat the addiction and abuse.

---

That's right. But to use the argument that a cashless welfare card will drive drug addicts to commit crimes as an argument against them is lame and backwards thinking.

If you want to use that argument, then you are admitting they use their welfare money for drugs and you are enabling them...which then it could be said (using that logic), just give them cash specifically for drug use to keep them from invading homes and robbing people, which then leads to...just give them drugs as part of their welfare package. Sure, why not?

You can say that is not accurate all day...but it is 100% accurate and anyone who doesn't agree with that is using flawed logic. So we'll never agree.

[chameleon54]

---

@lyndal1838 wrote:

---

@chameleon54 wrote:

---

The fact that the leaders of several indiginous communities where substance abuse is crippling families and the wider community have reportedly asked to have the scheme introduced indicates they believe it may help. Noel Pearson ( someone I have a lot of time for ) has also expressed support for this type of scheme.    

---

 So if it is good for several indiginous communities it is good for everybody?

Sorry, but I don't think so.

For years we have been throwing money and services and housing and everything else at indiginous communities and no good seems to come of it.

Let's face it, not everyone lives in "communities" as the indiginous people.  If their leader/elders believe this system will help their people then by all means try it.....and see it fail, as so many of these experiments have.

But why expect everyone to toe the line. It is a vastly different thing to live in a suburban society where everyone is different and has different needs to living in a "community" where everyone is experiencing the same problems and most of them are on welfare of some sort.

I can't see the problem with people being asked to show their pension cards to get discounts etc.  It seems to be normal these days.

My husband and I are in our 70s and usually get funny looks when asked for our pension cards and answer that we are not on a pension.

---

I cant see a problem with it either. Pensioners regularly show their card for all sorts of services already and no-one thinks twice about it. It is a total non event, that we dont really even notice or ever think about.

The suggestion that if a card is introduced to be used for paying for things such as utilities and rent, it  is akin to making people wear a badge or have their forehead tatood is simply nonsense.

[chameleon54]

edit  - should have read " Cant see a problem with it from the point of view of identifying welfare recipients."

[***super_nova***]

The difference between indigenous community and people living in suburbs is that these communities are 100s of km from anywhere.  people there gettheir money and the only place to spend it is the ONE shop.  Giving them card instead of cash means that the only change is on what they can buy, not where they buy.  It limits the amount of grog and cigarettes, and the kids get fed better.   That is why it has  no impact on the families who were already spending their money on food. 

In large cities, the choice of where to shop is huge, and price difference is large.  Giving card to poor people who are no drug addicts, alcoholics or smoke too much, will mean that their survival strategies will be curtailed and their income in fact reduced.

This morning I went to our market and bought some apples for $1.20/kg, grapes $1.45/kg , bananas $1.50/kg nectarines $1.79kg. on the way home I stopped in our local supermarket and walked through the fruit/veg section to get some milk.  Bananas were $3,40, nectarines $3.80/kg, apples $5/kg, grapes $3.79kg .  So if i bought 1kg of all these at the market I would have paid $5.94, for identical shopping at the supermarket it would have been $15.99, that is $10 difference just on 4 items, and there are places that are even cheaper than our market.  So can you understand what impact the card will have on ordinary poor people who do not waste their money, and who  are managing just fine due to wise shopping?  It will mean their kids will have less food, just because there is a small % of people who spend their money on drugs.  Do you really think that is a step in right dirrection?

[go-tazz]

---

@***super_nova*** wrote:

---

@jimmy*part3 wrote:

---

I'd say "disadvantaged" people here have it a bit too cushie. I see them driving around in new cars (with their disabled placard hanging from the rear view mirror), parked in their driveways, at their well mancured homes....never having to work. Parking in the disabled parking spots in front of every store, watching them get out and stroll effortlessly into the store.

---

I do not know how difficult to get a disabled parking in the USA, but it is not easy here.  Of-course, here it is also abused, mainly by able bodied relatives taking grandma's car to the shops, but that is another story.

---

Unfortunatly it's starting to get abused a bit more than that and easier to get then you think.

I've asked a few here why they have a disabled sticker as they have no trouble geting out of a car and will

beat me getting to the shop/club,etc.

Their answer is that their doctors said they could have one,so they got one,(so the Doctor lied on their

application form).

That also now explains the number of visitors that come to town and park in the handicapped zone when

they clearly have no problems getting out of their cars.

The permit is designed and issued for people that have difficulty getting out of cars and that have difficulty

walking but a high number are now used by people getting out of high 4wd vehicles and cars that don't have

those problems.

It's dissapointing when you see a disabled person that clearly has difficulty getting in and out of their car

having to park two rows back and struggle to get to the front doors of our RSL club,(you then see people with

no difficulty hop into their car and drive out of a disabled spot with the permit hanging from the mirror,

The worst I came accross was a couple that looked to be in their 40's park in a disabled spot at the chemist

with the permit on their dash and they got out quickly as if they were in a hurry.

They didn't go into the chemist but quickly moved to the centre of the street to avoid the traffic and then to

the other side of the street and went to a cafe,(so how did they get their permit?,a dodtor that lied?).

So not only did they not need the permit,they also parked in a spot which is used on a regular basis.