No, all I know is you sign up and you get cash.

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.

The pity here is that people are willing to live like that. But lots of people willingly self-destruct, and it is not the kind of life one should want to live, and i would imagine most on welfare actually don't want to live on that low level of dignity

And in Michigan where you live, you don't know facts.

The disincentive to work no longer exists since the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 (signed by Bill Clinton).  Participants working and receiving assistance no longer immediately lose all benefits.  So a single mother, having to pay for child care is no longer punished by getting a job.  With this law, assistance was tied to the effort to find employment.

No law was ever over-turned.  In fact, if a woman choses to have a dozen kids, each of those children will receive continued assistance until their 18th birthday, at which point depending on their circumstances, they will now have up to 48 months of assistance within their life time.  Prior to 2011, the change (a tightening or restriction added) was that an adult could not receive assistance for greater than 60 months (enacted in 1996).  The parents were the ones restricted, not children and the incentive is to get parents working.

Federal law dictate the EBT cards, no Michigan law, though Michigan's Food Assistance card is called the Bridge Card.  The expansion of benefits to people who should not have been eligible was the result of Michigan hitting certain economic criteria which was never anticipated, namely Michigan's unemployment being significantly below the national average.  As you mentioned college students became eligible under the expanded rules, but the loophole was more an unforeseen event rather than unregulated spending.  Similar to the woman who still received assistance benefits  despite having won a million dollars in the lottery.  Assistance programs never took into account lottery winnings (even I thought they did), though food assistance is prohibited from being able to be used for lottery purchases.  Clearly it was a matter of a loophole being missed, and those loopholes get closed to ensure assistance goes to those who are in need of it.

Your implication that individuals lived high-on-the-hog is just a wee bit overblown.  Yes, they would have been able to purchase some food items they might otherwise not have been able to on their incomes, however any individual receiving food assistance is in the same position.  The issue was not that under the expanded guidelines that ineligible individuals received benefits, but that whether or not college students, who were actively going to school and had their housing and food needs met should be considered eligible.  The answer is an obvious no to any rational person. 

I don't believe you appreciate the exact nature of the current situation that exists in the job market.  People who have contributed to society, who likely paid tax money so you were able to get a student loan or grant for college, have now found themselves unemployed with no prospects for employment for no cause or fault of their own.  Everything they had worked for, their entire life, was either drained away or completely lost.  They've spent their careers paying into the system, and you want to fucking call them a leech?  You're an ungrateful bastard.

The "Welfare State" doesn't exist, it hasn't existed since 1996 under the Welfare Reform Act.  People have a limited number of months, mandated federally where they can receive certain benefits.  Some of these people are the same people who paid into the system for decades.  So don't sit there like some snot-nosed punk and tell those people that they are leeches.  They didn't put themselves there.  If you are lucky enough to never be unemployed then awesome, but if you're not I hope to God you don't feel entitled to unemployment benefits, health care, food assistance, or housing assistance, because with your smug attitude you don't deserve it.

This is also valid. He should call those guys on TV, Binder & Binder, or some other social-security advocacy lawyer.

1. There may be many requirments but I know people who always seem to get away with it.

2. Things may have changed now, but I know people who use to make it all up and never get caught. I know a guy in WA who told me when he had people on the dole come asking for jobs it was much easier for him to jsut sign the form saying they tried then giving them a go and have them quiting on him 2 days later.

3. Again I know people who have claimed they had a kid for those reasons, perhaps trying to act cool, i don't know. But I do know that their 2 year old is running around on the codesac unsupervised once every while when they forget to shut the front gate. There was a situation where I had to rescue the kid from on coming traffic. Yes I did report the situation.

4. Perhaps I was a bit over generalising. I was factoring in rent but did not want to go into detail. I know people (my friend included with two other mates all on the dole, which provided a nice combined income for having fun) who live in department housing and pay $70 a week (based on my state, no idea about others) for a 3 bedroom home. The same size home for non department is about $320 (that is what my brother pays). When my friend got a full time job, he was required to pay $350 a week for the department house he was in. Ironically I thought they would have asked him to move out to a private rental and given the house to a disadvantaged family.  My brother earns minimum wage, so after taxes he probably has about $520 a week - rent = $200 for other expenses, which is comparible to the left over my mate had at the time (worst off if you factored all three mates together). Now he has no choice, he has three kids so he has to have the space, otherwise his wife and him probably would live in a small 1 bedroom unit somewhere.

I do take your point that dollar for dollar value they are not close and I guess probably not everyone on  the dole will be lucky to have department housing and have the benefit of the significantly cheaper rent. But somehow the dole cheats alwas find the way to maximise their money whilst the real needy suffer.

5. No I have no problem with them receiveing these benefits. I actually think pensioners deserve far more what they are getting. My problem is that you are forced to get private health care if you earn a certain amount when you already pay taxes for the public system. It is a waste of money, so far my private health has offered me nothing. When I get sick, I still have to use medicare. It is only for when something serious happens that it may be of any benefit to me. In anycase, I should be given a choice without the threat of a penalty surcharge.

I do agree about all your centerlink comments. When I was looking for a job after graduating, they expected me to look for any job and not in my field. I told them that I did find a job, but I would be starting 2 months from now in the new finnancial year when the company has the budget to let me into the graduate program, They told me to keep looking for other jobs. Now why would I? The job I secured was fantastic. They even wanted me to go to the "how to write a resume and interview practise classes" during my post graduate study exams. I tired to reschedule but they said i HAD to come in. I went to the training place and told them I already had a job and  they STILL wanted me to practice and shredded my resume apart and wanted to load it into their template with their logo on it. I basically I said this is a waste of my time and walked out the door. Went across to centerlink and told them to cancel my payments as it was not worth the hassel. I was lucky that they did call me couple weeks laterandwanted me to start earlier as they needed the extra resources at the time. So I wasn't too harmed.

Ah yeah, sorry to say it was probably a case of not selling it enough.

From my expierence with people I know and talk to and such it's all a matter of how well you sell your backpain/depression etc.

As for Federal Welfare... does such a thing exist?  I thought outside of SSI that federal welfare money was handed over to the individual states who then set there own requirements.  I know SDD and SSI don't have time limits.

I actually know someone who's relative did that.

Pissed her off because when she really needed it, she didn't qualify, while she kept having more and more kids for the financial benefits.... kids were in raggity old clothes, eating garbage.  To the point of where relatives were trying to buy the kids clothes while she was buying stuff like big screen tvs etc.

And the worst part?  She had the gene makeup for downs syndrome.  Most of her kids ended up with downs syndrome.  Was depressing as hell.

You'd be surprised what people can do.... and I mean, i don't know about Austrlia, but to a poor person here?  $5,000 is a hell of a lot of money.

I mean shoot.  $5,000... I wouldn't have to work 4-5 months, and I pay my bills.

Welfare creates the welfare trap where it's easier to just stay on welfare than get a job that would only pay slightly better. I could get behind the negative income tax, which encourages you to find work, since your income would be boosted.

But of course my top option would be to get rid of welfare all together. I'm a 20 year old with no past work experience, this summer is the first time I've tried to find a job, and I was able to get a job for the summer within a week of sending out my resume. The employer got back to me in I think it was 1 or 2 days after I emailed him my resume, an interview was set up, and he hired me on the spot after the interview. I don't get why the government lets people stay on welfare for so long when it's easy as fuck to get a job. If welfare is to stay around it should be for a maximum period of about a month after getting laid off/fired. If I can find a job within a week with no past work experience, then you can't tell me the people on welfare now can't find jobs.

Great post man. You pretty much summed up my thoughts in those first three paragraphs.