Welfare

[David]

Following the budget, and a somewhat heated argument with Stui and Jo on Facebook, I thought I'd put this here for further discussion.

To be clear, this is not a thread about the budget or the specific measures contained therein. We already have a couple of threads on that. What I want to discuss is a basic principle that, to be honest, I thought was enshrined in modern Australia: the concept of social security. I didn't think we would reach a stage in my lifetime where we would be seriously debating this, but here we are. Let's discuss it.

'Welfare' seems to be a bit of a dirty word, but I was discussing this with a friend this evening and it came up that people very rarely think about what the word means. Here's the opening line from the Wikipedia entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare

[stui magpie]

I'd like to add some context to this poll.

The specific situation that was being argued by David, TP and myself was about people who do not want to work being eligible for welfare. Let me say that again so there's no misunderstanding, people who DO NOT WANT to work.

Not people who are injured, ill, have a disability or any of the myriad other reasons why people may find themselves unable to work, but people who actively choose that they do not want to work.

Our welfare system is geared toward supporting people who are unable to work. To get unemployment benefits people are required to provide some form of evidence that they are actively seeking employment, even if it is bullshit. While the test has changed over the years the principle has not in my lifetime.

Now I'm not going to unpack all the potential consequences both economically and societal that David's proposal could lead to, I'll let people mull that over and come up with their own thoughts.

But, for those people who check the box saying that everyone deserves a minimum standard of living, unconditionally, that means that you agree with David that people have no responsibility to even try contribute to their own standard of living. It is perfectly valid for a person who is perfectly capable of working and supporting themself to simply say that they don't want to work, put out their hand and we will pay them welfare. I don't believe that.

[Tannin]

Stui, in theory I agree with you. But in practice, it's probably cheaper to just pay a very low minimum living allowance to anyone who asks for it. I'm not talking luxury here, I'm talking a very basic at-or-below subsistence payment. No hordes of public servants to administer it - that saving alone is huge - and because the payment is set so low you can be very confident that close to 100% of it will be spent each week, which is good for the retail sector. We also save money through somewhat lower crime rates, and improve the education system by allowing disruptive, uninterested students to drop out and let the ones who want to learn get on with it. Remember, this is a very low payment, not really enough to live on, but anyone can have it if they want it. The only requirement is that you prove your identity so as to prevent people claiming it twice under different names. Because it is so low, not many people will want to stay on it for any length of time.

For those who can't work (because of, for example, illness, disability, or really want to get a job but none is available), the payment should be enough to live on. No ifs, no buts, enough to live on.

As a rough guide, the current unemployment benefit level is about right for the as-of-right payment, and the current old age pension level about right for the other one.

[Dave The Man]

[HAL]

Go ahead, Dave The Man, try to say that so there's no misunderstanding people who DO NOT WANT to work.

[Museman]

People actively seeking work deserve a whole lot better than they are getting for a start, if the protypes figures are somewhere near right, $400 per fortnight.
I want to meet the idiot who come up with this number and thinks somehow a person could survive on this.

And whats an MP take home? near enough 200k annually.

Are we fooked in the head?

[David]

Thanks Stui, I think that's more or less the crux of the argument.

It's interesting that you say that welfare has always been conditional. I understand that you can be suspended from Newstart for short periods, but I'm pretty sure that that's not an indefinite thing, and that Centrelink would still give you an advance if you were to claim hardship. But perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me can explain whether Australia's pre-Abbott welfare policy was more 'conditional' than 'unconditional'.

[stui magpie]

I'd have to look it up David but my recollection is it has always been similar, they will cut you off if you don't meet the compliance requirements and they don't just suspend you, they cut you off and you may need to re apply. Bugger all has changed at Centrelink under Abbott in the 6 months or whatever since the election.

At the risk of railroading the thread, the amount payable currently varies quite a bit depending on individual circumstances. Newstart for job seekers is currently up to $510 fn for a single with up to another $120 for rent assistance. Obviously people who live at home with mum and dad get less.

For those interested you can figure out the rates here https://www.centrelink.gov.au/RateEstimatorsWeb/publicUserCombinedStart.do

[1061]

[HAL]

What do you have that is it?

[Tannin]

[David]

OK, well I'm happy to take your word for it. The question is, then, should this be the case?

Personally, I think we are a wealthy enough country to afford to ensure a universal minimum standard of living. As a taxpayer, it's a privilege I'd be happy to help subsidise.

[Dave The Man]

[HAL]

[quote] What Happens if they help pay the Bills with there Pension

[pietillidie]

To add to what Tannin said on the cost of administration, if you were to genuinely assess the mental health of people who "don't want to be productive" (a more rational economic term than "work") you'd end up paying far more for medical treatment or training anyhow.

The vast bulk of people who "don't want to be productive" are highly likely to have some sort of mental malady, even if mild and eminently treatable. The urban mythology surrounding "laziness" is simply too ignorant of human psychiatry to recognise it. There are forms of narcissism, for instance, which look like "laze" or "snobbery", but are in fact representations of a seriously damaged self.

Also, people often confuse "paid work" with "productivity". People who stay home and look after children, or those who volunteer in the community, are being "productive", which is all that matters to the economy as a whole.

If you want to move certain people into specific forms of productivity, you have to train them and/or run campaigns to do that. That's a different story again.