Obviously common sense only elicits a stupid emoticon. 

You have made many valid points re “ the one size fits all ” we have atm, it has bred welfare dependancy and generational dole recipients.

The social breakdown is visible in many suburbs and communities, it has been a disaster.

There will always be those who abuse the system but the majority of benefit recipients do not. The current benefit system is not a "one-size-fits-all" and many factors are taken into consideration before the total amount of assistance is given. This cashless card will not be treated as such, will it? It will be forced upon whole communities, regardless of each individual's circumstances, including those who don't have addictions, are not violent, etc, won't it?

---

@bluecat*poledancing wrote:

There will always be those who abuse the system but the majority of benefit recipients do not.

 

I think it's the other way round,

 

The current benefit system is not a "one-size-fits-all" and many factors are taken into consideration before the total amount of assistance is given. This cashless card will not be treated as such, will it? It will be forced upon whole communities, regardless of each individual's circumstances,

 

including those who don't have addictions, are not violent, etc, won't it?

 

which are most likely in the minority in the communities where the cashless card is to be introduced.

 

 

---

---

@bluecat*poledancing wrote:

A simplistic approach to a complicated issue will only have a band aid affect. Addicts will always find a way to procure what they need and a cashless card will only be a temporary obstacle. The "poor and disadvantaged" do not need to be further patronised, infantilised or disempowered and if the government was serious about tackling the problems associated with  addiction, then, everyone would be targeted and not just those on benefits.

---

I think you are missing the point completely. I dont think that anyone is niave enough to believe the card system will " cure " addictions. I dont believe that is why it is being considered. If a welfare recipient wants to have a couple of quiet drinks or a smoke after a long hot day, good luck to them. That is what the discretionary component of the payment is there for. If a welfare recipient ( OR ANYONE ELSE FOR THAT MATTER ) has an ice addiction, smokes a pack of cigerettes a day or drinks several cartons of beer a week, thats also their business. 

I just dont think its reasonable for those people TO EXPECT THE TAXPAYER TO PAY FOR IT !!!! 

Addictive behaviors are placing a major burden on the health care and social welfare system. Simple demographics show there simply wont be enough taxpayers to keep up with the ballooning social welfare ( aging population )  and health care expenses in the future. Now is the time to have a mature debate about how we can manage these looming problems. Ensuring welfare payments are spent on housing, utilities and food instead of addictive behaviours is a small part of the answer.

Oh, no, I get the point, probably every person on benefits gets the point because it is rammed down our throats at every opportunity.

---

@bluecat*poledancing wrote:

Oh, no, I get the point, probably every person on benefits gets the point because it is rammed down our throats at every opportunity.

 

 

---

The majority of welfare recipients manage their finances in a responsible way now. It is the reasonable sized minority that are not doing the right thing that are responsible for much of the stigmatisation resulting in ALL welfare recipients ......" getting the point because it is rammed down their throats at every opportunity " . 

I agree that there is a tendency for all welfare recipients to get tarred with the same brush. This is distressing for the genuine people concerned and can be the cause for low self esteem and mental health problems. Basically it compounds an already difficult situation.

Genuine welfare recipients should be just as supportive as other groups of initiatives designed to " clean up " a mismanaged system that is being abused by the minority. This would leave a lot more money available and a lot less stigmatisation of  welfare recipients if those who are capable of supporting themeselves did so, leaving the genuine people to recieve benefits.

Genuine recipients should also support measures designed to prevent welfare fraud and missuse.

You just don't get it, do you?  How difficult is it to comprehend that if you cannot shop around, your food bill will be considerably more than if you can buy from markets and some small shops?  People will not be able to shop for good deals on eBay, or garage sales, or buy goods such as cars privately.  And everytime they will pay in the supermarket everybody in the queue will know that they are welfare recipient.  Maybe we should also make them wear badge, or even better tattoo it on their foreheads, so everybody knows.

By the way, only 1.4% of the unemployed are longterm unemployed.  That means people who were unemployed for more than a year. 

Maybe it is timely to remember that any person working is at any time only about 2 pay cheques away from government assistance.

---

@***super_nova*** wrote:

You just don't get it, do you?  How difficult is it to comprehend that if you cannot shop around, your food bill will be considerably more than if you can buy from markets and some small shops?  People will not be able to shop for good deals on eBay, or garage sales, or buy goods such as cars privately.  And everytime they will pay in the supermarket everybody in the queue will know that they are welfare recipient.  Maybe we should also make them wear badge, or even better tattoo it on their foreheads, so everybody knows.

 

By the way, only 1.4% of the unemployed are longterm unemployed.  That means people who were unemployed for more than a year. 

---

Yes I do get all of that. I agree the concept in its present form is not ideal, but is a good starting point to try to find a system that works. 

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.    

It is definately a difficult policy area and one that we will never see complete concensis on. The problem of missuse of welfare payments has got to stage where it cant continue to be ignored. It is causing too much damage to genuine welfare recipients and simply cant continue to be financed at its current escalating rate into the future.

---

@***super_nova*** wrote:

You just don't get it, do you?  How difficult is it to comprehend that if you cannot shop around, your food bill will be considerably more than if you can buy from markets and some small shops?  People will not be able to shop for good deals on eBay, or garage sales, or buy goods such as cars privately.  And everytime they will pay in the supermarket everybody in the queue will know that they are welfare recipient.  Maybe we should also make them wear badge, or even better tattoo it on their foreheads, so everybody knows.

 

By the way, only 1.4% of the unemployed are longterm unemployed.  That means people who were unemployed for more than a year. 

---

Please try to at least have a mature discussion about this. . People on welfare already show their pensioner discount card at the doctors, the chemists, the optomistrist, to tradesmen who offer discounts to pensioners, to train and bus ticket sellers amongst others. Every time they do this  everyone in the line knows they are a social service recipient. BIG DEAL.

I cant say I ever even noticed ( or cared ) and I doubt that many others would either. Sorry, but If you are standing in the line to order your script at the chemist playing  " spot the pensioner " you really have got too much time on your hands.