| Cobretti2 said: As an outsider living in AUS looking into the US, I don't think anyone here thinks that American welfare is great. On the other hand look at Australia: pf = per fortnight Basic rates • Single, no children $489.70 pf • Single, with dependent child(ren) $529.80 pf • Single, aged 60 or over, after nine continuous months on payment $529.80 pf • Partnered (each) $442.00 pf • Single, principal carer of a dependent child (granted an exemption for foster caring/home schooling/distance education/large family) $648.50 pf Key things: 1) you can be on welfare (we call it the dole) here for as long as it takes you to find a job. Most do not look for jobs as that call the welfare their paycheck. 2) All you need to prove is that you "tried" applying for jobs. 3) Aus use to give out a baby bonus ($5000 luimp payment per child born). So a lot of these people who have kids just so they could buy smokes or big screen TVs. Now (perhaps soon) it will be done as cupons for baby products. 4) Minimum wage in Australia is barely above those pf rates (after taxes). There is no incentive for these people to work as free money that is similar amount is better then working for it. 5) They get concession cards, so free or cheap medical, cheaper public transport etc.. Then there is out tax system which is another long story haha. Basically the harder you work to make something of your life, the more penalites in surchage taxes you get (like penalty for not having priavte health cover). |
1) Not strictly true. There are more requirements on you while you're on the dole, the longer you're on it.
2) Again, not strictly true. You have to provide details on where you applied to, etc. If someone is caught out as not actually trying, it can cause real problems.
3) I'm sorry, but that's just absurd thinking on your part, probably driven by idiotic radio shock-jocks who make those sorts of claims with no backup evidence. Do you honestly think that a person would go through nine months of pregnancy, followed by things that apply after childbirth, just for $5000 for cigarettes or a TV? Seriously? If you actually think any sane person would do that, you're lacking in sanity, yourself.
4) Not true even in the slightest. Minimum wage is $15.51 per hour or $589.30 per week (which is based on 38 hours a week). As per your numbers, for a single parent with dependents, the dole is $529.80 per fortnight, or $264.90 per week. Anybody who would claim that $589.30 per week is "barely above" $264.90 per week has failed elementary mathematics, and should perhaps consider returning to grade 5 mathematics. In order to have minimum wage be "barely above" the dole, they would have to work less than 18 hours a week. And keep in mind, relatively few people earning minimum wage are full adults with children. But even if you suppose that they're making that much a week (by working only 17 hours a week), they are still eligible for partial welfare support - at $264.90 per week of earned money, they are still eligible for $134 per week in welfare support.
5) You really think that there's a problem with offering those who are in such circumstances such things?
Now, I don't dispute the existence of dole cheats, and families that happily live on the dole (indeed, a family member's boyfriend happens to come from such a family... although he actually does make a strong effort to keep work, and has a very good work ethic, as it so happens). But these are the natural side-effects of trying to keep everyone from living in poverty (and preventing poverty is a very good aim). And it's worth noting that there really aren't enough jobs out there to employ everyone.
The alternative is to take a repressive, vindictive, limited approach to welfare, which only makes matters worse. One of the funny things about welfare at the level we spend in Australia is that it's actually a net positive impact on the budget - the stimulation of the economy, and the prevention of various illnesses and related issues (which reduces burden on hospitals, etc), actually means that the government has more money to spend than would otherwise be true. Republicans in America and Liberals in Australia (for those in America reading this, the Liberals, with a big L, are a conservative, right-wing party) fail to realise that this sort of thing actually furthers their ideals, because they have such a blinkered view of the world that they think that preventing poverty is akin to giving out free money for nothing in return, when in fact it is quite the opposite.
If there's a problem with the welfare system in Australia, it's that it's too complicated and not sufficiently tightened in terms of regulation of it... and that it's not forgiving enough for those who can't find work due to various situations. Let me use myself as an example. I relatively recently finished my PhD, and am currently looking for a postdoctoral research fellowship. In the meantime, I'm rapidly running out of money, despite quite a bit of thrift AND being helped by my parents. I tried going onto welfare, but they expect me to apply for 10 jobs a fortnight. Now, it's not a lot for someone who is trying for a labouring position, but if I were to apply to every remotely-appropriate job that was advertised, I would be lucky to apply for 5 per fortnight. In reality, restricting it to jobs that I have a small chance of actually getting, I'm lucky to find one per fortnight (but I have quite a decent chance on those jobs, and if I get one, it'll have quite a decent wage attached). Meanwhile, holding a PhD basically makes it difficult, if not impossible, to get a job of any "lower" level (in terms of qualification) because of the combination of my specialised skillset and the fact that I'm seen as "overqualified" (and therefore seen as likely to be dissatisfied with the job, and thus a risky choice). But I'm also not willing to lie, because the truth is, any job I get could end up being very short because I'd still be looking for a postdoc. Note that, even as I look for work, I'm also working on scientific journal articles in an effort to increase my employability... but it costs me quite a bit of money to travel to the city and back (and I need to do this to work with my PhD supervisor on those articles), which means I can only travel in on rare occasions.
But Centrelink doesn't consider that at all. To be clear, I'm not asking for less requirements for the same money. I'd gladly reduce the amount received to 40%, in order to also reduce the required number of applications to 4 per fortnight. I'd quite happily also give up all of the pension concessions. I really just need enough to barely survive with parental support, but that's not how much I'm actually offered, nor how much burden is attached. As such, I ended up getting only 3 weeks worth of welfare, before I dropped it, realising that not only was it wasting my time, but it was wasting the time of employers. It's also worth noting that I went through all of university, all the way to PhD level, without a single dollar of governmental student support (austudy).
So in future, if you're going to criticise the Australian welfare system, try doing so using actual facts and knowledge, rather than ideology and ignorance.
