Welfare system reform. (2 Viewers)

[dieburndie]

Inspired by the recently deleted thread discussing the treatment of Indigenous people-

Australia's current welfare system operates primarily through providing direct cash payments to those on low incomes or otherwise viewed by the government as in need of financial support. Firstly, this is an incredibly inefficient, and often ineffective way of providing those in need with basic resources.

What is less immediately obvious about such a system however, is how often it has the effect of greatly disincentivising the improvement of skills and general utility of recipients, and acting to keep them perpetually uneducated, unemployed and poor. Subsequent generations are born with greatly diminished chances of ever achieving higher living standards, and the eventual outcome is entrenched poverty. This is obviously an incredibly prevalent occurrence in Indigenous communities, but also very common in other sectors of the population.

Assuming that government-provided welfare is the best possible method of accounting for the truly needy (for pragmatic purposes only), surely this should not take the form of direct, regular cash payments? Why should tax payers be funding the non-essential, non-productive purchases (Alcohol, other intoxicants, gambling etc) of welfare recipients- when attaining these items is often prioritised over satisfying basic needs such as adequate nutrition and shelter, and providing for their own unfortunate children?

I'd like to hear how other users feel about the current welfare system, particularly unemployment benefits, and how you think the system should be reformed.

Some starting ideas
- Restricting welfare to rent assistance, keycards that are limited to purchasing essential items, and providing other basic services

- Requiring that individuals provide evidence of using parenting payments to support their children/ scrapping parenting payments in favour of assistance directly targeting children (providing meals, clothes etc)

- Discontinuing regular payments, instead providing assistance on a short-term/one-off basis only, by application.


Or we could just abolish the welfare state

Thoughts?

 

[sydchick]

Food stamps?

Alcos just spend their dole on grog.

 

[banco55]

-No single parent pension.

-Disability pension should be restricted to those who can't work in any job. Not those who can't work in their chosen industry.

-Lifetime limit for centerlink benefits of 3 years for new start allowance.

 

[chelsea girl]

Re: controlling how people spend their welfare, is that not out of line with your views on freedom (what if people don't care about nutrition and want to just take drugs?)

Also, which types of payments exactly would you apply that to? Surely something like a disability support pension should not have those restrictions put on it as, presumably, that is the recipient's only form of income. Ditto for age pension.

And for things like newstart, what if the recipient wanted to use their payments on things like smart clothing or other things that would, in their view, help them gain employment? Should the government dictate what is a useful investment to their future and their working potential and what is not? If someone is an aspiring artist can they spend their payments on art supplies, books, and entry to galleries?

 

[SylviaB]

Re: controlling how people spend their welfare, is that not out of line with your views on freedom (what if people don't care about nutrition and want to just take drugs?)

with their own money they can spend it on whatever the hell they like


when the taxpayer is being made to give money that is meant to keep you out of poverty, then you shouldn't have any real freedom over how its spent

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Inspired by the recently deleted thread discussing the treatment of Indigenous people-

Australia's current welfare system operates primarily through providing direct cash payments to those on low incomes or otherwise viewed by the government as in need of financial support. Firstly, this is an incredibly inefficient, and often ineffective way of providing those in need with basic resources.

What is less immediately obvious about such a system however, is how often it has the effect of greatly disincentivising the improvement of skills and general utility of recipients, and acting to keep them perpetually uneducated, unemployed and poor. Subsequent generations are born with greatly diminished chances of ever achieving higher living standards, and the eventual outcome is entrenched poverty. This is obviously an incredibly prevalent occurrence in Indigenous communities, but also very common in other sectors of the population.

Assuming that government-provided welfare is the best possible method of accounting for the truly needy (for pragmatic purposes only), surely this should not take the form of direct, regular cash payments? Why should tax payers be funding the non-essential, non-productive purchases (Alcohol, other intoxicants, gambling etc) of welfare recipients- when attaining these items is often prioritised over satisfying basic needs such as adequate nutrition and shelter, and providing for their own unfortunate children?

I'd like to hear how other users feel about the current welfare system, particularly unemployment benefits, and how you think the system should be reformed.

Some starting ideas
- Restricting welfare to rent assistance, keycards that are limited to purchasing essential items, and providing other basic services

- Requiring that individuals provide evidence of using parenting payments to support their children/ scrapping parenting payments in favour of assistance directly targeting children (providing meals, clothes etc)

- Discontinuing regular payments, instead providing assistance on a short-term/one-off basis only, by application.


Or we could just abolish the welfare state

Thoughts?

Abolishing the welfare state is the only solution.

If we assume for argument's sake "that government-provided welfare is the best possible method of accounting for the truly needy" then I would have to say cash payments are in fact the best method, although only because the alternatives are so much worse.

Alternatives like food stamps simply don't work. What happens in parts of America where they do have food stamps is that people that want to buy liquor and drugs simply sell the foods stamps for a percentage of their face value.

The more you try and control how people spend welfare, the more money you end up wasting on bureaucrats who attempt to police how the money is spent. Ultimately, you can never really stop people trading "necessities" for stuff they want more, short of paying a bureaucrat to actually watch them eat the food.

Rent assistance and food stamps also do nothing to solve the underlying problem you identified of people having no incentive to work hard to better themselves and gain new skills. If people know they will have necessities like food, shelter and medical care provided to them without working, their incentive to work is greatly diminished, even if you somehow succeed in restricting their access to supposedly "bad" things like drugs. Remember, drugs are only part of the problem. Many welfare dependent people aren't addicted to any substance or traditional vice, they are just lazy.

 

[Kwayera]

How about providing short-term low (or no) interest loans for the unemployed instead of payments? Incentive to get a job to repay, it's not technically welfare..


I haven't thought this through or anything, I'm just throwing it out there.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

How about providing short-term low (or no) interest loans for the unemployed instead of payments? Incentive to get a job to repay, it's not technically welfare..

Yes it is. Giving loans to people who could not normally get them at below market rates is exactly equivalent to welfare.

If they have a reasonable career and are just dealing with temporary unemployment, they can manage that through unemployment insurance or good old fashioned savings.

The majority of welfare dependent people who are virtually unemployable have no real hope of paying back such a loan. What is the penalty going to be if they don't pay it back? Remember imprisonment is more expensive than just giving them welfare.

 

[dieburndie]

Re: controlling how people spend their welfare, is that not out of line with your views on freedom (what if people don't care about nutrition and want to just take drugs?)

As stated above, I'm not in favour of controlling how individuals spend their own money, these are limitations on what is provided by others. The purpose of the welfare state is to apparently provide a safety net for the underpriveliged, if this is the case it should be directed towards essential resources.

Also, which types of payments exactly would you apply that to? Surely something like a disability support pension should not have those restrictions put on it as, presumably, that is the recipient's only form of income. Ditto for age pension.

As there are other factors involved in those, I'm referring mainly to unemployment benefits provided to the able-bodied.

And for things like newstart, what if the recipient wanted to use their payments on things like smart clothing or other things that would, in their view, help them gain employment? Should the government dictate what is a useful investment to their future and their working potential and what is not? If someone is an aspiring artist can they spend their payments on art supplies, books, and entry to galleries?

Clothing would presumably be included in the category of essential items. As for other purchases made to increase skills/employability, perhaps they could be offered on a case by case basis by application.

 

[Kwayera]

Yes it is. Giving loans to people who could not normally get them at below market rates is exactly equivalent to welfare.

If they have a reasonable career and are just dealing with temporary unemployment, they can manage that through unemployment insurance or good old fashioned savings.

The majority of welfare dependent people who are virtually unemployable have no real hope of paying back such a loan. What is the penalty going to be if they don't pay it back? Remember imprisonment is more expensive than just giving them welfare.

I was more thinking a HECS-style loan, which you repay once you're able to. Like I said, I didn't really think it through

 

[williamc]

Inspired by the recently deleted thread discussing the treatment of Indigenous people-

Australia's current welfare system operates primarily through providing direct cash payments to those on low incomes or otherwise viewed by the government as in need of financial support. Firstly, this is an incredibly inefficient, and often ineffective way of providing those in need with basic resources.

What is less immediately obvious about such a system however, is how often it has the effect of greatly disincentivising the improvement of skills and general utility of recipients, and acting to keep them perpetually uneducated, unemployed and poor. Subsequent generations are born with greatly diminished chances of ever achieving higher living standards, and the eventual outcome is entrenched poverty. This is obviously an incredibly prevalent occurrence in Indigenous communities, but also very common in other sectors of the population.

Assuming that government-provided welfare is the best possible method of accounting for the truly needy (for pragmatic purposes only), surely this should not take the form of direct, regular cash payments? Why should tax payers be funding the non-essential, non-productive purchases (Alcohol, other intoxicants, gambling etc) of welfare recipients- when attaining these items is often prioritised over satisfying basic needs such as adequate nutrition and shelter, and providing for their own unfortunate children?

I'd like to hear how other users feel about the current welfare system, particularly unemployment benefits, and how you think the system should be reformed.

Some starting ideas
- Restricting welfare to rent assistance, keycards that are limited to purchasing essential items, and providing other basic services

- Requiring that individuals provide evidence of using parenting payments to support their children/ scrapping parenting payments in favour of assistance directly targeting children (providing meals, clothes etc)

- Discontinuing regular payments, instead providing assistance on a short-term/one-off basis only, by application.


Or we could just abolish the welfare state

Thoughts?

ching

 

[Kwayera]

Yeah tbh my personal opinion is just straight out abolition of the welfare state. But hey, one tries to be conciliatory

 

[williamc]

btw they have already tried limiting bulk alcohol purchase, which hasn't worked.

economically, food stamps are a good idea. Hasn't worked too well in America though. I can't imagine it working with Aboriginals. All it does is just piss people off.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

The government can't stop people using drugs by threatening them with lengthy prison sentences.

Hell, it can't even keep drugs out of the prisons!

It's hardly going to stop people getting alcohol which is readily available by giving them vouchers instead of cash and having a few extra bureaucrats trying to control them.

 

[chelsea girl]

You can't just abolish welfare in one sweep, that is an absolutely ridiculous idea.

Obviously if you support the eventual abolishment of the welfare state you also have to come up with realistic and achievable ways to phase it out, otherwise you're just whining about something that you know will never change.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

You can't just abolish welfare in one sweep, that is an absolutely ridiculous idea.

Obviously if you support the eventual abolishment of the welfare state you also have to come up with realistic and achievable ways to phase it out, otherwise you're just whining about something that you know will never change.

I agree. I think it should be phased out gradually. Unemployment benefits should slowly be reduced, by say 0.5% a week, over several years.

In the meantime, all industrial legislation should be scrapped allowing unskilled workers to actually get jobs, and taxes should be removed (at least for all low income earners) to make working comparatively more attractive.

People always go on about exploitation and the minimum wage, but they are happy for people to be paid less than half the minimum wage doing work for the dole or sitting through pointless job-search programs in order to get their welfare.

The average welfare recipient only needs to make $5 an hour at full time work to be getting more than they are on the dole. At this rate, almost everyone (even the most unskilled) could find work. Once people actually get into the employment market, prove that they can actually work hard and gain some skills they should soon be making a lot more money.

Those who are genuinely disabled could continue to receive payments (though ultimately I favor handing this over to private charity). The same applies to people on aged pensions. Those who are currently dependent on them could have them paid out until they die, whereas the younger generation can be warned well in advance that the pension will be phased out.

 

[williamc]

Neo-liberalism represent

 

[dieburndie]

Abolishing the welfare state is the only solution.

As the welfare state seems as if it will inevitably remain a relatively permanent fixture in government, if it must exist I was thinking about how it could be improved.

Alternatives like food stamps simply don't work. What happens in parts of America where they do have food stamps is that people that want to buy liquor and drugs simply sell the foods stamps for a percentage of their face value.

Technology could play a very useful role here. Obviously food stamps don't work, but it would be perfectly possible to prevent a keycard type system from being subject to the same problems. ID verification and penalties on lost/stolen cards could be two potentially useful measures.

The more you try and control how people spend welfare, the more money you end up wasting on bureaucrats who attempt to police how the money is spent. Ultimately, you can never really stop people trading "necessities" for stuff they want more, short of paying a bureaucrat to actually watch them eat the food.

I agree that these changes carry with them the risk of wasteful, extensive beauracracy evolving, but any welfare state involves a level of beauracracy. Combined with the use of expanding technology, there is no reason reform like this couldn't be managed by a department far smaller than the obvious example of Centrelink.

Rent assistance and food stamps also do nothing to solve the underlying problem you identified of people having no incentive to work hard to better themselves and gain new skills. If people know they will have necessities like food, shelter and medical care provided to them without working, their incentive to work is greatly diminished, even if you somehow succeed in restricting their access to supposedly "bad" things like drugs. Remember, drugs are only part of the problem. Many welfare dependent people aren't addicted to any substance or traditional vice, they are just lazy.

Yes, the problem still exists, but limiting assistance to necessites means there is still a strong incentive for people to find employment. Part of the reason the current welfare system eliminates this incentive is because payments only marginally less than the wage for unskilled employment are provided, with the non-monetary benefits of not having to work outweighing the small difference. Without income available to spend on recreation/entertainment, the difference becomes far greater and the value of free time decreases significantly.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Technology could play a very useful role here. Obviously food stamps don't work, but it would be perfectly possible to prevent a keycard type system from being subject to the same problems. ID verification and penalties on lost/stolen cards could be two potentially useful measures.

Does this mean we force supermarkets and grocery stores to be part of the policing of this system (checking ID cards ect, sounds pretty police statish)?
It also means the government has a list of everything people buy so they can check certain items aren't being purchased.

It's still easily circumvented. You do $100 worth of food shopping for me, I give you $80 worth of drugs. A bit of extra hassle does not stop drug addicts and alcoholics from pursuing their fix, especially when they have lots of time on their hands anyway because they are unemployed.

I agree that these changes carry with them the risk of wasteful, extensive beauracracy evolving, but any welfare state involves a level of beauracracy. Combined with the use of expanding technology, there is no reason reform like this couldn't be managed by a department far smaller than the obvious example of Centrelink.

Nice try Stephen. What you're suggesting does not eliminate the existing cost of Centerlink determining who is eligible for welfare. It's an additional cost on top of that to try and control how the welfare is used. Your confidence in the government being able to control costs, use technology efficiently and keep bureaucratic organizations small seems to be out of step with everything you have ever said and everything that we have ever observed the government do.

Yes, the problem still exists, but limiting assistance to necessites means there is still a strong incentive for people to find employment. Part of the reason the current welfare system eliminates this incentive is because payments only marginally less than the wage for unskilled employment are provided, with the non-monetary benefits of not having to work outweighing the small difference. Without income available to spend on recreation/entertainment, the difference becomes far greater and the value of free time decreases significantly.

As I said, its easily circumvented. People just sell the food.

But even if the idea was somehow successful in preventing people buying non-necessities, if people are getting their necessities provided and only need a little extra money for entertainment (i.e. smokes, drugs and gambling) couldn't they easily just make up the difference with a few hours of cash in hand casual work, or by committing a few crimes?

Is it really going to be enough incentive to actually get people off welfare and into productive work?

 

[dieburndie]

Well I can't sincerely keep defending the idea because I agree with basically every objection you've made. Attempting to argue in favour of an idea based on accepting a premises I vehemently oppose was never likely to work all that well, but *whatever*

Alright, another idea. What if welfare was provided by the government through a system modelled on private charity? Say a wide network of food and basic clothing banks was established, as well as other outlets providing essential resources. There would be limited/no criteria that needed to be met to access the facilities, just an item limit. It would also be far more politically feasible than abolishing welfare altogether, as it wouldn't be perceived as entirely neglecting the disadvantaged...

I also think I should make the point that all of these ideas should be compared with the current system, and not a situation in which welfare didn't exist at all.
I mean, the current system is so inefficient and harmful that a level of productive reform must be possible short of disbanding it, which we agree is the best solution, but isn't practically possible with the sprawling form of government that currently exists.

​

I think the solution is to legalise all drugs.