Posts by Grant Dexter
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Uhhhh ... OK.
-
:sigh: One post, 15 responses. Two not inane. None willing to address any issues.
You'd think I had posted on a liberal forum...
-
What the Dickens...?
Tony, I must have a higher expectation of people than you do. Which situation do you think would be better:
A) A mother as a part of a properly functioning family, or
B) A mother being paid because she is not so?If you think you're making some reason as to why we should have benefits then you'll have to start again rather than jumping in the middle. I do not think vulnerable women should be left to fend for themselves. So stop trying to play the sympathy card. 1% of the population being in genuine need is not justification for handing out money as a way of life.
There is already legislation against the break-up of families. So you're going to have to issue challenges that make you at least appear to know what you're talking about.
You continue to demonstrate your ignorance by pretending that people do not claim benefit out of indolence. All it takes to be indolent is a little encouragement. A benefit is a great encouragement to anyone who has only ever known a benefit, or worse.
If you can't understand simple truths then I'm not surprised you cannot wage a decent assault on my points. Not having money is not wrong. The actions of people that lead to people being poor are wrong. People responding to not having money by expecting others to work for them is wrong. Do you so desperately want to disagree with me that you are prepared to argue with that as well?
And, no, I wouldn't like a paycut. Why would I?
Do you?
-
Significant issues arising in welfare states as pointed out by people I can only assume to be in favour of continued benefits. Also some evidence that the welfare state feeds apathy rather than people who might genuinely need assistance:
And the organisations that will be required to provide the increase in mandated budgeting advice are asking where the funding will come from to pay for the increased output.
Welfare states create employment for people who could be doing something productive. There is inherent stupidity in a large workforce dedicated to working for those who are not working. Those who are not working should work for those who are.
single mothers are damned no matter which way they go. Work all the hours god sends, get blamed for neglecting the kiddies; stay on the DPB and try to raise them on $200 a week or whatever it is, get blamed for being a bludger, as if raising children isn't work that should be highly valued anyway.
Single mothers do not benefit from being given money. They benefit from being part of a properly functioning family. Some things money will never solve. A welfare state would do much better to issue laws protecting families rather than handing out money after families disband.
there are already checks on sickness benefits. You have to provide regular doctor's certificates.
A welfare state believes it is wrong to steal. Given this hypocrisy they will go to great lengths to avoid being stolen from. Hence numerous checks on beneficiaries which lead to a numbing of public resistance to fraud in general. Anyone who believes a doctor is not affected by pressure to sign welfare papers is living in a fantasy land.
it won't work in practice
Any idea on how to police welfare will only add to the bureaucratic pressure and inventiveness of those willing to stretch the rules.
Life in the benefit line is already hell. Very little money, constant denigration by society (and a cohort of children feeling ashamed of their station in life), regular deprecation by WINZ.
Why does a state sanction this sort of degradation? People are capable of finding there way to this level regardless of public policy. Without a benefit to keep them subsisting the motivation to work would motivate them to work.
well... if they can afford them, then more power to them. being rich doesn't mean the kids will be better people than the children of the poor. or vice versa.
Social policy that shapes plans for families is an obvious no-no. People should be responsible for their actions, not rewarded or penalised for having or not having children.
In. Any. Case. Governments created centralised social welfare as a reaction to well-recognised social problems.
Having no money is not a social problem. People's actions that cause poverty are. People's responses to poverty are. Clearly the idea of paying poor people for doing nothing does not end their need.
More people in the workforce ... means a cheaper workforce.
Which should end all argument. Who doesn't want a cheaper workforce?
There are two very simple truths that are perverted by the welfare state. The first is obvious. It is wrong to steal. No government has the right to demand money for reasons other than that which it is authorised to do.
The second is perverted as a consequence. Nobody has the right to demand who an employer hires or fires.
It is denial of these simple truths that leads to all the hand-wringing and unnecessary legislation.
And a final note: You people would do better to engage the points rather than ranting like lunatics about anything and everything but. Gosh, I thought I was back in a Sunday service there for a minute...
-
You're quoting Jesus now? Are you suggesting we legislate for morality? Are you really sure you want to swap this debate out into that arena?
This is a simple concept. If people are given benefits they are not taught that work is necessary. In order to defend the welfare state one must use the sympathy card, validating the expense for many because of the needs of a few.
Reality is that if there were no welfare there would be a great big new workforce available. Reality is that, regardless of state funded financial support, there are some people who will always need help. Those people should be and are supported because it is the right thing to do. Not because the government legislates so.
The reality is that an entire economy has been created around people who suggest they cannot work. Reality is that no matter what system we employ nothing cancels our responsibility toward protecting those in need.
-
Uh .. OK. That was intense.
What should happen to the couple of hundred thousand people receiving a benefit? They should get work instead.
More people in the workforce means more employment positions.
It's fairly simple, really.
-
:squint:
Who said anything about leaving women and children to fend for themselves. Why would anyone want that to happen?
I think it's quite clear that there will never be a statistic showing who is in genuine need of welfare. If you do not like one person believing that it is less than 1% of the current population of welfare recievers then an opposing opinion is just as valid, if not believable.
If one was prepared to consider the consequences of ending welfare I'm sure one would quickly see its huge benefits ... uh, yeah I guess that's a pun .. or else one could just react in caustic fashion because one does not like the way other conversations turned out.
I guess that's something you could all do instead ..
-
:squint:
What do other taxations have to do with ending welfare funding taxes?
Of course we need law enforcement and certain other things supported by tax. What we do not need is welfare.
What percentage of people on welfare do you imagine are in genuine need of it? I would say the number is well below 1%.
End welfare and looking after the 1% would be relatively simple.
-
:sigh: Welfare states....
End all welfare. End all taxation that powers welfare. End all administration that relies on welfare. Save a few billion and kickstart an economy.
Simple.
-
Aw, come on David Hamilton. Everybody <i>knows</i> that those are the same bands!