@djilukjilly wrote:
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...
Although the policy may need some refinements it sounds reasonable. I do wonder why it is only going to be rolled out in regional areas though. Isnt misuse of welfare payments a problem in cities too or is it only people in the regional areas who use welfare payments which are meant to provide the basic necessaties of life for other purposes. If it is going to be rolled out, make it universal.
Unemployment benefits are only really designed as a stop gap to provide the very basics to keep a person going until they regain employment. If a person is genuinly too sick to ever work again, the disability support pension is designed to cater for this need.
This isnt money that "the government gives people". It is money that employed taxpayers work extra hours for and then give it to those who dont work. With benefits of all sorts making up the largest single expense in government budgets, a person working a 40 hour week would be working several hours for free to hand over the money to benefit recipients through tax. This is a hard concept for many to understand, especially if they themselves have lived off of the "public purse" all of their lives.
I have public housing at the rear of my place and there is certianly one family that chose welfare as a lifestyle choice. They keep having babies, have booted their teenage daughter out ( now homeless ) to illegally sub lease her bedroom to a "tenant" and have a thriving dope business going. ( when the porch light is on, they are open for trade ) . Personally I dont appreciate having to work extra hours to pay tax so that they can sit on their butts smoking dope all day.
The other house has people with genuine health problems. They are unable to work, will never be able to maintain regular employment and should be looked after by a compassionate society.
I,m sure many will see this post as " centrelink bashing ", but this would seriously underestimate my views on the subject. I believe that a modern, wealthy, compassionate society SHOULD look after the aged, physically and intillectually disadvantaged. I also believe that the rest of the community who are capable of taking responsability for their own well being should do so and should contribute through tax to supporting those in genuine need as well as paying for social infrastructure.
The problem is there are too many people who find it too easy to just live off of other taxpayers labours, rather than getting out of bed and contributing to society. This contributes to the social stigmatisation of those in genuine need ( reffered to by other posters on this thread ). The numbers doing this have become so large, that funds for those in genuine need are restricted. This is not fair to taxpayers and not fair to genuine welfare recipients.
3BrNBBRz4UYdo+!~~60_7.JPG "chameleon54"){kind=avatar}
