I am glad that I have sparked some debate about this issue. What I wish people would do is to lift their thought process above their emotions and discuss the issue not the feelings.
Agreed. Debate is always useful. I've spent some time thinking about your suggestions, trying to be objective, and putting the emotional response aside.
Now onto Julia's comments: You assume I have never faced adversity. Without going into details your assumption is very wrong. I speak in fact coming from experiencing that adversity and having direct experience of the adversity of others at the very bottom of society. The difference is how you respond to that adversity. Do you expect to sponge of the government or help yourself? The choice is a personal one.
I was simply offering my interpretation of your own situation gleaned from your comments which seemed to me to be those of someone who has never felt they simply didn't know how to cope. If that's wrong, then I unreservedly offer my apology.
What I think I'm trying to get at is that some of us possess the innate capacity to cope with adversity, and are able to make the choice not to allow abuse or any other of life's hurdles to mortally wound us. We can pick ourselves up and work out how to start over. I don't know where this comes from - perhaps it's genetic, perhaps it's a result of decent parenting?
But we are all different and some people just don't have those coping skills.
Perhaps they can be taught in some cases, but in others no they can't.
Look at it as you would a physical disability like epilepsy. Just a feature of that person's personality. So these are the people we need to look after.
That said, I agree entirely that there are a large number of people who are just lazy, unmotivated, and who are leeching off their fellow citizens.
Perhaps your notion of a privately run welfare system could afford the personnel required to do individual interviews of everyone and decide who is genuinely deserving and who just needs a good kick and a reality check.
But wouldn't such an organisation be answerable to its shareholders and therefore reluctant to employ more people than Centrelink does currently?
Also you are getting confused with the source of the assistance rather than its existence. I am not advocating a society in which we refuse to help anyone. I am advocating a society in which the government does not perform that role. Having government look after welfare is inefficient. If you really want to assist the needy then go private enterprise (in a very loose sense I use the term - we commonly refer to these organisations as charities) they are far more efficient at it. I hold up the Salvos as an example. In your approach LESS assistance is getting to the needy not more. How does that help them. It doesn't.
Not sure what you mean in saying the needy are receiving less assistance.
Could you clarify this?
So, to use your example of the Salvos, would they be expected to fund their welfare scheme entirely from donations as they do at present? Would there be any other source of funding? e.g. tax dollars?
A further point on 'charities' looking after people, especially those with a religious base like the Salvos, St. Vinnies etc: Their credo is to give every person the benefit of the doubt. They are very non-judgmental in whom they assist. If someone has blown their entire dole on the pokies or drugs, they will still come to their rescue in paying rent or electricity. I don't think that's what you have in mind and I'd agree.
In your senario of the government handling welfare, you are pointing that gun at my head saying "pay up or else" - that is coercion. It is no different if I was to do the same thing in reverse and say "Owing shares is now illegal". You are being coerced to do something against your will. (This happened in a slightly different way in the US when the government made it illegal for their citizens to own gold - Executive Order 6102 April 5 1933 - funnily enough it was partially related to what was then their anti-terrorist acts... hmmm... lesson there for those asute enough to see it). Back on topic - people don't respond well to force yet that is what you advocate.
This is reasonable to a point. I guess it depends on your fundamental attitude about what sort of society you want to live in. For myself, although I resent stuff like the baby bonus, and feel much of the welfare system is inequitable, I am happy for my tax dollars to support people who need help.
I'd much rather see politicians' overly generous superannuation arrangements chopped and other areas of waste removed, than refuse to help human beings who for whatever reason are simply inadequate. The whole welfare system needs to be completely overhauled.
As to those who don't have support from family, re-read my comments about the privately run charities that existed prior to government intervention. I am not sure how much historical research or background reading you have done in this topic but I would be interested in some more references myself. If you can prove to me that having a government run welfare is more efficient and results in more assistance (dollars as well as support) getting to those in need then we have something to discuss. Otherwise a privately run system will always outperform a centrally planned government one.
Not disputing that government administered welfare is inefficient. Agree.
I'm just not sure that a private organisation which is primarily focused on making a profit, is going to have human interest at heart.
Earlier you suggested that the difficulty faced by people with mental illness in getting treatment these days dates back to the closing of most of the psych institutions. Yes, I'd agree completely. I remember (was in NZ at the time) when governments proudly said "it's time to regard people with mental illness as an integral part of our society. So we will stop locking them up in big institutions, and instead care for them within the community". Well, great idea, except it just didn't work. The 'care in the community' was miserably inadequate and as a consequence the ex-institutionalised people were pretty much left to look after themselves. So they were not compliant with their medication, their behaviour therefore was unacceptable in the community in many instances, so they were even more stigmatised and shunned than before.
In a psych hospital, they were with people like themselves and supported as necessary. What I'd like to see happen now is the establishment of hostel like places where those who can't cope entirely on their own have a measure of independence, but have the support of a live in nurse/mental health worker who would ensure they managed their money, took medication, ate properly etc. Perhaps, Lakemac, even this is "nannying" them too much?
Re single mothers: Pretty unfair to categorise all these together. There is certainly a large element where it's just easier to keep having babies than do anything more constructive. The baby bonus has encouraged this hugely.
Is it likely the progeny of these young women will grow up to be functional and independent taxpayers given the parenting and role modelling they have received? I doubt it. More likely they will just add another generation of idlers on welfare.
But then you have women escaping domestic violence or other adverse relationships. We need to help them until they have re-established their ability to cope. The previous government's introduction of the requirement for single mothers to seek work after the child is a certain age was a good thing and should have happened years ago.
Re your point about women needing more financial education: yes, agree, but not just women. Many men are financially hopeless.
Even so, there are still going to be those I've referred to above - people who simply don't have the skills or capacity to learn basic survival without assistance.