Social welfare

[DAKSTER]

As I say to others about most 3rd world countries, Australia started with convicts, no one had anything? And look at us now, we built a country, we weren't handed it....

Who built a country? Immigrants and criminals. The criminals built it under the lash, the immigrants worked their guts out after coming here to seek a better life.

 

[Reaper]

I think income insurance should be mandatory, so that if someone does loose there job and has to face a considerable length of unemployment, they can rely on there insurance before having to claim benefits on the tax payer, and hopefully get work before they have to claim benefits.

Can you please point me towards an income protection insurance scheme that covers loss of job/redundancy?? Most (all??) don't.

I think a big part of the problem is that being on benefits is too easy, and many people can't be bothered to work when the government is paying there way in life and rent ect, and they don't have to go to much trouble to claim it.

I think our system is still better than allot of others, like the USA where you get six weeks of benefits, and that's it, no job in that time frame and you go homeless(from what I've been told anyway) and having centrelink keeps allot of people of the streets, but I think the system could still be allot better than what it is.

My two cents anyway, but I'm no economic expert.

As posted in this thread before, I firmly advocate a cap on unemployment welfare. I think 6 weeks is probably a bit short - I'd suggest around 18 weeks, perhaps extended on a sliding scale depending on how long the person has been in continuous employment (not necessarily the same employer)

Reaper

 

[HoldenOn]

Can you please point me towards an income protection insurance scheme that covers loss of job/redundancy?? Most (all??) don't.



As posted in this thread before, I firmly advocate a cap on unemployment welfare. I think 6 weeks is probably a bit short - I'd suggest around 18 weeks, perhaps extended on a sliding scale depending on how long the person has been in continuous employment (not necessarily the same employer)

Reaper

No idea, I thought it would have been a common thing. Maybe not.

18 weeks unemployment benefit would be fair I believe.

 

[minux]

Who built a country? Immigrants and criminals. The criminals built it under the lash, the immigrants worked their guts out after coming here to seek a better life.

Did we require over a trillion dollars in aid from other countries to do it?

Clearly you missed the point being made.

On a side note of social welfare etc. Is it fair that smokers/Alco's/druggies get welfare when their life choices see them on benefits for life? Surely if one chooses to smoke or drink and ends up with liver or lung cancer then they should pay for everything themselves...or is this too harsh?

 

[HoldenOn]

Did we require over a trillion dollars in aid from other countries to do it?

Clearly you missed the point being made.

On a side note of social welfare etc. Is it fair that smokers/Alco's/druggies get welfare when their life choices see them on benefits for life? Surely if one chooses to smoke or drink and ends up with liver or lung cancer then they should pay for everything themselves...or is this too harsh?

I think that would be fair, if they dropped the huge taxes on cigarettes and alcohol.

 

[DAKSTER]

Did we require over a trillion dollars in aid from other countries to do it?

No, we imported waves of people, some of whom were serious criminals, some who were petty thieves, and some who were completely innocent. We used that slave labour to build the beginnings of our society. Then a bunch of brave immigrants in search of a better life came over here and made one for themselves.

None of this would be possible in todays society. Slave labour is out, and immigrants get told to go home, we dont understand your culture. The original inhabitants of this country were enslaved or put into camps, and shot if they attempted to resist.

The immigrants mostly came over to escape poverty and hunger, seeking a better life. They found natural resources and exploited them, as would you or I. This country turned out to be a richer place than the homeland, so they didnt need trillions. That said, I am sure the Brits invested a crapload of money in the place.. a couple million pounds here and there is a hell of a lot more than that in todays money.

 

[MikeCuzzy]

On a side note of social welfare etc. Is it fair that smokers/Alco's/druggies get welfare when their life choices see them on benefits for life? Surely if one chooses to smoke or drink and ends up with liver or lung cancer then they should pay for everything themselves...or is this too harsh?

I think it's a dangerous slope to be honest. The basis of the welfare system is you give a little, you get a little. Say you have a smoker who gets cancer at 55, they then will need to rely on the health system. I would point out that they have paid tax for more than likely 40 years up till that point - possibly never really taking anything from welfare/health or any other tax payer funded service.

I mean, if I break my leg playing soccer and require surgery, should I have to pay for it all based on the fact it was a life choice to be active in a contact sport? A bit of a stretch I know, but that continuation of logic worries me as to how far people go.

I'm only 21, so I've been paying tax for about 4 years or so. Now, Minux, you've paid HEAPS more tax than me more than likely, so should be entitled to more benefits than me?

I think the welfare system needs certain adjustment, but the concept of give a little get a little - should stay. The bit you get might not be as big as the bit you put in, but I wouldn't want to live in a world where you can only take out as much as you put in. That's one of those things that will bit you in the arse one day.

To your question directly, I support universal health care and as such regardless of life choice - a person should get healthcare.

 

[Reaper]

Did we require over a trillion dollars in aid from other countries to do it?

Clearly you missed the point being made.

On a side note of social welfare etc. Is it fair that smokers/Alco's/druggies get welfare when their life choices see them on benefits for life? Surely if one chooses to smoke or drink and ends up with liver or lung cancer then they should pay for everything themselves...or is this too harsh?

Wow - very slippery slope that one. Where do you draw the line? Somebody not watching where they were going, fall down and break their necks? Anybody who ends up disabled thru a injury playing sport, or any other activity that is voluntary??? I've never smoked, nor done the drug thing but don't mind the odd sip ever now and again. Should I be denied welfare if I have a disease that could be traced back to alcohol? What about heart disease from being overweight?? Some people somehow have deplorable diets consisting of fast food for nearly every meal, they can have very healthy bmi's yet some people near put on 5 kg just by the thought of such food.

Reaper

 

[gopher]

Did
On a side note of social welfare etc. Is it fair that smokers/Alco's/druggies get welfare when their life choices see them on benefits for life? Surely if one chooses to smoke or drink and ends up with liver or lung cancer then they should pay for everything themselves...or is this too harsh?

isn't that the reason they are taxed heavily?

 

[DAKSTER]

Wow - very slippery slope that one. Where do you draw the line? Somebody not watching where they were going, fall down and break their necks? Anybody who ends up disabled thru a injury playing sport, or any other activity that is voluntary??? I've never smoked, nor done the drug thing but don't mind the odd sip ever now and again. Should I be denied welfare if I have a disease that could be traced back to alcohol? What about heart disease from being overweight?? Some people somehow have deplorable diets consisting of fast food for nearly every meal, they can have very healthy bmi's yet some people near put on 5 kg just by the thought of such food.

Reaper

And does that also mean that councils everywhere will have to close all recreation areas to avoid being sued in case of accident because its the only way people can pay their medical expenses? And I wonder how much will get spent on warning signs, witches hats and fences to stop people tripping on rocks? And how many lollipop men will be employed protecting potholes in the road...