I'd restrict what the vouchers can be exchanged for as well.

And no Tatts when your on welfare.

I'd also like to some regimented drug testing, no drugs when your on welfare.

You know what a lot of this comes down to? Attitude. Sure, you can say that you are helpless and expect other people to help you out all the time, or you can start thinking "What can I do to help myself?"

Attitude. Watch this video and then dare to feel sorry for yourself.

I don't have a problem with applying the idea of vouchers to the long term unemployed, but where would you draw the line? If a person has been working and paying taxes for say 30 years without missing a beat and they found themselves temporarily out of work, would you then impose stringent conditions on them? They could make the argument that their own temporary welfare was self-financed.

Usually their Superannuation would be locked up until they are a certain age, so that's not normally an option.

muso wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 3:33pm:



Why?

Being long-term u/e doesn't mean you're an idiot, nor does it turn you into one. You don't lose 20 or 30 years worth of being able to manage your finances simply because you can't get a job.

Controlling the income/benefits of the long-term unemployed, simply because they ARE, is not reasonable or acceptable.

On the contrary, it's counter-productive and discriminatory in the extreme.

As I've stated previously, deal with the issue on a case-by-case basis, based on referrals from child welfare agencies and/or the police.

Otherwise, butt out.

And leave their cash payments alone...

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 2:46pm:


I trust that principle also works in reverse - If I'm going to financially help the government, I have every right to specify how those finances will be used.

Kat wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 7:28pm:


I'm not implying anything about your personal situation. I don't know and it's not relevant.

It's all about pulling your weight. Maybe it is a small minority, but the rationale is that if I've been working all my life and paying tax, I'd take exception to bludgers, young or old drawing the dole and for example spending their life surfing at Broome. There are examples where they pool their dole, share a house for next to nothing per person, smoke drugs and drink alcohol.

In that post, I gave the example of a person who found themselves out of work after having contributed to the system, so  I agree that some kind of assessment is necessary and it should be managed on a case by case basis. I presume that Centerlink would assess cases individually anyway, but for the more extreme cases, enough is enough.   

It all comes down to attitude. Anybody could find a gainful employment if they just apply themselves. If they can't find paying employment, there is the option of becoming a volunteer.  Any kind of work is a stepping stone to full time employment.

muso wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 7:33am:



OK, Muso, I misunderstood your comment, and I do agree with your last comment, by and large.

In fact, I'm actually one of the under-employed, I have paid work but it isn't constant, and I
do perform volunteer work the rest of the time. Can't abide just sitting around doing nothing, and, perhaps
naturally, tend to assume others are like-minded.

Most are, but I don't deny the existence of a minority who aren't. Which is why I suggested case-by-case
handling of the matter.