PDA

View Full Version : What do you believe welfare policies should be like?



Dagna
Tuesday, October 23rd, 2007, 05:08 PM
I believe welfare is an interesting topic when it comes to economic matters. What do you believe welfare policies should be like? Some people believe welfare should be abolished except for the disabled.

Abolish Welfare, Except For The Disabled Who Can't Work (http://www.americandaily.com/article/6873)

The pros and cons of welfare:

PRO
Welfare Law Center (http://www.nclej.org/)

CON
American Public Human Services Association (http://www.aphsa.org/Home/home_news.asp)
Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/)

Dennis
Wednesday, October 31st, 2007, 03:25 AM
I would expect most people to be in support of some sort of public assistance to the unemployed, disabled, etc. If you are unfortunate to lose your job, with no savings or significant assets with which to support yourself, how long would it be before you were out on the streets turning to crime? I suspect that the small cost of some public financial aid would be much more effective than the police/court/prison costs of someone that turned to crime in desperation.

I am a strong supporter of the Work-for-Welfare idea. The temporary unemployed can be put to work in some productive way if they want to receive some sort of publicly funded assistance.

On the other hand, there is private income insurance. You pay a percentage of you salary as insurance in case lose your job. It is more expensive, but you don't have to do compulsory work and instead spend your time on finding new employment.

As I have mentioned in a previous comment in another thread, I think government and private business can work in partnership in this area. Some people prefer the public programs, while others prefer private programs.

United Faith
Wednesday, October 31st, 2007, 03:42 AM
I think it's stupid to think that the disabled can't work. There's always something one can do, no matter what they have wrong with them.

I think welfare should be given to those who accomplish something meaningful (determining factors would be tricky) as well all soldiers.

SwordOfTheVistula
Wednesday, October 31st, 2007, 06:35 AM
I think welfare should be given to those who accomplish something meaningful (determining factors would be tricky) as well all soldiers.

The current US system is the opposite of this. Not working because you sit around all day watching TV? Welfare for you! Not working because you are in college, so that in a few years you will be a more productive citizen? No help for you!

Thrymheim
Thursday, May 15th, 2008, 11:18 AM
I was about to post this thread when I spotted it here...

If I had total control over the welfare state this is how it would run. any underlined bits are the ones I consider particulaly important.

Unemployment...

1. Dole lasts at full rate for 6 months, after that rate is 0

2. If you have not found a job by 6 months then one will be found for you.(nasty menial labor)

3. Attendance of such found work would be compulsory, the option would be a debtors prison, lets get some of the jobs back from the far east.

Disability...

1. A job that is suitable would be found or created,

2. If disability is so servere that no work of any kind can be done, then they must be either a hospital case or asylum case anyway.

Old age...

1. Retirement age of 60 for both sexes obviously not mandatory.

2. State pension rises fixed to cost of goods, including fuel and housing.

3. "Bonus" pension top ups for those who have served their country, ex services, including fire etc, nurses, mothers of 4 or more children (or fathers who have been the sole parent), those with bravery awards etc.

Parenthood...

1. if a couple one half must be working to have any benefits given,

2. Maternity/paternity benefit at full wage for 12 months

3. For family's of 4 children or more with one parent working or unable to work or look after children (i.e dead) full wage payed to parent who stays home to educate/look after children

OneEnglishNorman
Friday, May 16th, 2008, 12:19 AM
If welfare is too be provided by the state, then it should not be in the shape of money handouts. Better is direct help, for example distributing food and blankets at local centres. That is far more efficient.

No one needs to starve or be homeless (unless a person actually desires that). At the moment the welfare systems are weighted too much against an incentive to go out and get work. I much prefer the welfare provided in Victorian times, it was targeted, localised, and did not indulge people.


2. If you have not found a job by 6 months then one will be found for you.(nasty menial labor)

3. Attendance of such found work would be compulsory, the option would be a debtors prison, lets get some of the jobs back from the far east.

IMHO we can radically reform the welfare system, without getting draconian on individuals. Compulsory employment... let's not go there :)

Fortis_in_Arduis
Friday, May 16th, 2008, 03:23 AM
'Workfare' has been employed (pun intended) in the US has it not?

I think that the current situation is that people who do not want to work for a rubbishy wage are 'paid off' with welfare to prevent a revolt and whereas I could happily envisage a workfare scheme where the work provided by the state is of a long-term national benefit, but not an immediate benefit to finance capitalists, ultimately, I would like to see welfare to be managed on a local level.

Thrymheim
Friday, May 16th, 2008, 03:27 AM
...whereas I could happily envisage a workfare scheme where the work provided by the state is of a long-term national benefit,...

Ultimately, I would like to see welfare to be managed on a local level.

That would fit perfectly into my plans :) local provision would be essensial as only the local comunities know the individual cases and reasoning, after all maybe someone isn't working 'cause their looking after an elderly or sick neighbour.

SwordOfTheVistula
Friday, May 16th, 2008, 10:11 AM
'Workfare' has been employed (pun intended) in the US has it not?

Yes, for things like food stamps and other welfare payments, they made it a requirement that the recipient be employed and limited the length of time benefits could be collected. There are of course a number of ways to get out of this environment. After the welfare reforms in the mid 90s, many of them switched over to collecting from the Social Security system by claiming 'disabilities' such as alcoholism and 'depression' (don't feel like going to work)

Elysium
Saturday, May 17th, 2008, 04:31 AM
No welfare for anyone, no matter their position.

One can always find an occupation or some job for which they are of use. They should humble themselves. If they aren't prepared to take anything lower than CEO, that is their problem, not society's.

I think, if you perform well, it should be made customary to give bonuses and whatnot.

But this is all merely ideological. I would imagine there would be problems - big and small - that would have to be overcome.

OneEnglishNorman
Saturday, May 17th, 2008, 08:01 AM
No welfare for anyone, no matter their position.

One can always find an occupation or some job for which they are of use. They should humble themselves. If they aren't prepared to take anything lower than CEO, that is their problem, not society's.

I think, if you perform well, it should be made customary to give bonuses and whatnot.

But this is all merely ideological. I would imagine there would be problems - big and small - that would have to be overcome.

I agree, basically. But people born with severe disabilities deserve some help. That's an exception.

Berrocscir
Saturday, May 17th, 2008, 02:07 PM
A nation should always show compassion for those who genuinly cannot work, but it should always expect people to stand on their own two feet if they can. A radical approach is from the UK Green Party who advocate a 'citizens income'. Layabouts should be put to work - no doubt about that.

SwordOfTheVistula
Monday, May 19th, 2008, 08:37 AM
The problem is the layabouts always pretend to be 'genuinly cannot work', "can't find work anywhere", 'mental disability', faking physical injury, etc

Also, those who can't work because of choices they made such as drug addiction, severe obesity, riding a motorcycle without a helmet, or single mothers should not expect the rest of society to bear the burden for their actions

Solwynn_AOR
Monday, May 19th, 2008, 07:43 PM
The problem is the layabouts always pretend to be 'genuinly cannot work', "can't find work anywhere", 'mental disability', faking physical injury, etc

Also, those who can't work because of choices they made such as drug addiction, severe obesity, riding a motorcycle without a helmet, or single mothers should not expect the rest of society to bear the burden for their actions

Someone always has to bring up the single mothers, eh? Yes, we're all out there pushing out the puppies because we know how much it antagonizes everyone. Its a conspiracy, man!!!:p

I'm certain that I know of the family situations that you speak of, but being a single parent for most of my son's life, I feel compelled to speak up on behalf of those of us out there who worked our butts off damned hard, because you know, there is always that bunch who blithely assume we are all getting ourselves knocked up on purpose, because secretly we just LOVE to sit around the house drawing welfare, watching Jerry Springer, and breeding like rabbits. :rolleyes:

In fact, most of the ones I know don't expect society to bear any of our burden, myself included. About the only thing on my wish list in regards to govermental assistance would be more money put into forcing the other half of the breeding equation to contribute to their responsibility in this. Barring that, especially in the case of teenagers, make the families responsible until the young parents are old enough to be out the door and working.

theTasmanian
Monday, May 19th, 2008, 10:22 PM
No welfare for anyone, no matter their position.

One can always find an occupation or some job for which they are of use. They should humble themselves. If they aren't prepared to take anything lower than CEO, that is their problem, not society's.

I think, if you perform well, it should be made customary to give bonuses and whatnot.

But this is all merely ideological. I would imagine there would be problems - big and small - that would have to be overcome.

i had spent 6months on the "dole" here.....why because we had a recession and there was NO work not even paddock work to be had!

i do think Thrymheim has it just right give people some help but IF they don't really want to help them selves then make it happen.

Australia has far to many bludgers just using it as an easy ride especially if they live in public housing

ChaosLord
Monday, May 19th, 2008, 10:51 PM
The problem with the welfare system is that it's dependent on taxpayer money. A majority of those same taxpayers wouldn't even qualify if they were to try and enroll for the welfare services. It's a bit backwards in my opinion.

Elysium
Monday, May 19th, 2008, 11:01 PM
i had spent 6months on the "dole" here.....why because we had a recession and there was NO work not even paddock work to be had!

i do think Thrymheim has it just right give people some help but IF they don't really want to help them selves then make it happen.

Australia has far to many bludgers just using it as an easy ride especially if they live in public housing

If or when the "Great Revolution" ever occurs, I highly doubt the same economic-system will be kept.

theTasmanian
Tuesday, May 20th, 2008, 08:23 AM
:D when the "Great Revolution" happens it will be a case of who's go land in the hill to hold for their own who will have a say about anything.......it wont be a revolution it will be a "fast train going down hill";)