longweekend58 wrote on May 1
st, 2011 at 7:38pm:
mozzaok wrote on May 1
st, 2011 at 7:29pm:
I agree completely with FD, and I think of it in terms that welfare decided on any other basis than need, is not welfare.
Now while I know that $2000 per week is no princely sum to raise a family on, it is still perfectly achievable, and if a family happens to need more, then you need to ask why, and if the answer is to pay the mortgage on a million dollar property, then I don't think it is the governments role to help them with that, if it is because they have children with special needs, and I don't mean a pair of $200 runners every second month by that, but physical needs, then in such cases assistance should, and would be available.
While we do see some on the right stereotyping unemployed people as no good wasters, spending all their money on alcohol and tobacco, and using that as reason to deprive them of any assistance, I have to wonder if they hold a similarly harsh view for middle income earners who struggle to make ends meet because they divert so much income into asset building?
If I thought we could give ALL welfare to just those that need it I might agree with you. But how do you define 'need'? based on income?? hardly. but your argument is very simplistic. what about the family that has has paid taxes for 20 years and then hits hard times. do you determine that their assets are adequate to be sold and so give them nothing until their poverty equals that of the loweset denominator? does the mere existence of a lot of children imply need?
it is a very narrow defiition that you employ and I am facsinated that you too would reject 'fairness' as even an issue in welfare.
and where does responsibility enter the equation? You simplify this subject to a point where if only 'need' is the demand for welfare then surely there should be NO welfare at all other than one single payment paid entiredly on the basis of your circucmstances. no dole, no disability, no single parent payment. everything based on an actual measure and determined 'need'. Is that ok?
you might find some surprising results out of using actual unequivocal 'need' as the sole criteria.
I think you will find, Longy, that the current welfare system pays no heed to the historical circumstances of a family - nor of their financial commitments...
Most welfare payments are mean-tested to the nth-degree - on both cash income and deemed earnings from assets - and calculated on the basis of income in the prior 2 weeks...
That said, Family Tax Benefit payments are mostly paid fortnightly but then adjusted annually - and entitlements are calculated down to the dollar!
You are fecked if you lose your job, receive a redundancy and/or have more than a few thousand dollars in the bank - regardless of how large your commitments are and how quickly your reserves dwindle...
Notably, you do not receive any accommodation assistance unless you are a renter (in order to help you to pay off your landlords mortgage) - as there is no allowance made for your accommodation expenses if you have a mortgage...
Control-link pays no heed to your past 20-odd years of employment - and the policies of the Gillard Govt and Abbott Opposition seem to be trending towards making life harder for mature aged people who suddenly find themselves on the unemployment scrapheap...
Forum
Pages: 
Does A Family Earning $115,000 Deserve Help. (Read 15762 times)
