He supports it and thinks it should be extended to who?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5WhCfIuUCI

Anyone object to Leyonhjelm wanting politicians to be given cashless welfare cards and having pay docked while budget is in deficit?

Baronvonrort wrote on Aug 30^th, 2018 at 4:44pm:

Anyone object to Leyonhjelm wanting politicians to be given cashless welfare cards and having pay docked while budget is in deficit?

Baronvonrort,

I would vote for that man!  [Leyonhjelm]  ....if i were able to.

If junkies, alcoholics and all the other 'bludgers' who ride on the back of the 'Battlers' who put the welfare system to good use. Suddenly have their 'easy money' taken away from them...

...they will resort to violent measures to get it.

What will Australia do then?
When the gaols are overflowing ...send them where?

You brought your 'criminals' with you (here) and forever will you be shackled to them, like a monkey on your back.

We are constantly being told that "we're all in this together", but we are yet to define exactly who the "we're" are in this hollow statement. There is the "we" and there is the "them", but I can't figure which one I am.

So let's clarify this in easy to understand terminology. There are standard rules for those in the public sector, and a different set of rules for those in the private sector. The private sector pays for EVERYTHING in the public sector, but must live with the decisions made by those in the public sector, good or bad. Those in the public sector enjoy the fruits of our labour in the private sector, but are given immunity against the bad decisions of those in the public sector (themselves). In fact, when things turn bad in the private sector, the public sector gives itself a pay rise.

And no, I am not lashing those fine men and women that protect our borders, provide health-care services, deliver the mail, and fix our roads. My argument sits squarely with those puffed-up elitist career politicians and their bureaucratic hanger-on parasites.

So...who reckons that Australia pays too much in welfare?

If you're in that camp, do you reckon the cashless card represents "good value"?

You might if it:

1) Were cheap to administer and

2) Provided the intended outcomes.

Right?

So...someone who is on Newstart at around $14600 a year (normal rate) is also costing an extra $10000 in "administrative" fees.

Is that good value for money?

Are the stated outcomes being met?

To quote one organisation:

"There is no evidence that it improves the wellbeing of individuals or communities, either by reducing substance abuse or by increasing employment outcomes. The cashless debit card carries a high risk of unintended and expensive consequences for government and the community, including social exclusion and stigmatisation, increased financial hardship, the erosion of individual autonomy and dignity and an increase in the overall cost of social security provision".*

Hmmm...looks like we ticked that box then!  ::)

*From the St Vincent de Paul Society's web site.

i wouldnt put too much trust into what Vincent De Paul says. They have a vested interest.

rhino wrote on Oct 4^th, 2020 at 3:12pm:

i wouldnt put too much trust into what Vincent De Paul says. They have a vested interest.

Leaving aside any "vested interest" (a claim which could be made about any orgaanisation/person contributing to the debate), do you think handing over $10K of taxpayers' funds to "administer" a cashless card for someone drawing ~$14600 a year on a pension represents good value for money???

It's probably just me (in fact, given the dearth of comments, it's almost certainly just me), but I find it odd that a Government which spruiks:

1) Smaller Government

2) "Staying out of people's lives"

3) Good money management

4) Lowering the cost of service provision to the budget

5) (Etc.)

would think that paying a private firm $10K a year to administer a system which pays recipients ~$15K a year represents a good use of taxpayers' funds.

It's no wonder I'll never go into politics. Seems any idea I'd have - around "value for money" etc. - would have a supporter base of just 1.

Why does such a system require private company to administer it? Regardless of the pros and cons of such a system, it could be run by centrelink without a lucrative contract going to a private company.

Yeah, wonder why a company was appointed to run it.

Not a very competent company by the sounds.

Mix_Master wrote on Oct 5^th, 2020 at 7:44am:

rhino wrote on Oct 4th, 2020 at 3:12pm: i wouldnt put too much trust into what Vincent De Paul says. They have a vested interest. Leaving aside any "vested interest" (a claim which could be made about any orgaanisation/person contributing to the debate), do you think handing over $10K of taxpayers' funds to "administer" a cashless card for someone drawing ~$14600 a year on a pension represents good value for money??? It's probably just me (in fact, given the dearth of comments, it's almost certainly just me), but I find it odd that a Government which spruiks: 1) Smaller Government 2) "Staying out of people's lives" 3) Good money management 4) Lowering the cost of service provision to the budget 5) (Etc.) would think that paying a private firm $10K a year to administer a system which pays recipients ~$15K a year represents a good use of taxpayers' funds. It's no wonder I'll never go into politics. Seems any idea I'd have - around "value for money" etc. - would have a supporter base of just 1.

Totally depends on the benefits obtained. We could say that in areas where the cashless card has been trialled that child and family abuse is endemic. And this is so because these people being paid sit down money choose to  spend that money on alcohol rather than food for their families. I would like to see detailed outcomes which include stats on domestic violence etc. Its impossible to take these peoples dignity away by giving them a cashless card, they discarded their own dignity years ago.

Quote:

Leyonhjelm on cashless welfare card

I see no reason to consider or even watch his opinion on anything.

rhino wrote on Oct 5^th, 2020 at 1:26pm:

Mix_Master wrote on Oct 5th, 2020 at 7:44am: [quote author=Rhino link=1535542308/6#6 date=1601788349]i wouldnt put too much trust into what Vincent De Paul says. They have a vested interest. [quote]Totally depends on the benefits obtained. We could say that in areas where the cashless card has been trialled that child and family abuse is endemic. And this is so because these people being paid sit down money choose to  spend that money on alcohol rather than food for their families. I would like to see detailed outcomes which include stats on domestic violence etc. Its impossible to take these peoples dignity away by giving them a cashless card, they discarded their own dignity years ago.

I live in a place where there are people on the cashless card. Many of them have issues paying the rent with it, because the money never seems to hit the Landlord's (Property Manager's) account in time. Cue "notices to vacate".

Finding a place to rent in this town is damn hard. We rented our house out for a year after we purchased it...we had good, pre-screened tenants move in on the day of settlement, and could have rented it to 15 more equally good tenants at the time). Still could, tomorrow, if we wished.

Not great if you get evicted for "non payment" of rent. Esp. when the company - a company which is raking in $10K per cashless welfare recipient - can't get payments to suppliers/service providers out on time.

No real evidence - anecdotal or empirical - that the Card actually improves any of the outcomes it was intended to.

But it is lining the pockets of a private provider.