Is reducing welfare payments a violation of human rights?

[draco664]

Yes, says the Australian Human Rights Centre.

In Australia our current federal government is in rather dire financial straits. Not that that's anything unusual these days, but for the last 3 years the treasurer has been promising over and over again that he would deliver a surplus in his budget this year.

No one but the most rabid Labor supporters actually believed him, so no one was surprised that he finally admitted he had no hope of delivering. Not when the PM is as addicted to spending money as the US government...

Anyway, as a cost saving measure, the government decreed that some single parents on welfare should be shifted from single parents payments to unemployment, which is a cut of up to approx $100 a week. (Basically, it was parents whose children were all school-age and were out of the house during the day. The theory was that the parents would go out and work during that time.)

The Australian Council of Social Service protested, and took their complaint all the way to the UN. ( sorry, the link button isn't working on this browser - here's the url - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-0...e-cuts/4550662 )

Now, I'm conflicted about this. On one hand, for 90% of the population it is never easy having your income reduced. And the argument that these people should all go out and work would be more believable if there was actually any jobs going. This is really going to stress people who are already tight.

But on the other hand, the government is way in the red. They need to stop spending somehow. (Personally, I could name half a dozen government departments that could be closed down, but they're mostly vote-grabbing exercises, so that's not likely to happen...) You only need to look at Greece and Italy to see what happens when you borrow more and more to keep paying unproductive people.

The ACOSS Chief Executive quoted in the article seemed to miss the point IMO. She claimed that this decision was pushing people into poverty.

These people are already in poverty. That's why they're getting money from the rest of us - to assist them in keeping them fed and housed as a minimum standard of living. But since when was the right to other people's money a human right?

[Nyoibo]

It's not, but unless you're prepared to create another government service to completely oversee the distribution of food, clothing, housing and other basic necesities then you need to give people the money.

Also on a related note, it's not your money, saying that tax money is yours is the same as saying that rates money, electricity and phone money is yours once its gone to the company, it's not your money and you don't get a say in what happens to it.

[draco664]

It's not, but unless you're prepared to create another government service to completely oversee the distribution of food, clothing, housing and other basic necesities then you need to give people the money.

That's been done, in the Northern Territory. "The Intervention" Basically, a lot of aboriginal welfare recipients were not buying necessities with it, and letting their kids scrounge for their own food. Payments were stopped and services were given instead.

So it's not as ludicrous as it seems.

Also on a related note, it's not your money, saying that tax money is yours is the same as saying that rates money, electricity and phone money is yours once its gone to the company, it's not your money and you don't get a say in what happens to it.

Rubbish. Money paid for electricity and phone is in exchange for specific services. Money paid to the government as tax is not. You very much have a say in how it is spent - if not, the politicians wouldn't spend so much of their time trying to convince you that what they are spending it on is in your interests. At the very least you get to vote. And as the article itself points out, you can go to court to attempt to change a government's decision.

[Nyoibo]

Money paid as tax is for a specific purpose, to allow you to live in a governed country, you don't have a say in how it is spent, you don't even have a say in how decides on how it is spent, the only say you have is which party may be in power to decide where funding goes and in that case you only have a say in your local representative.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

If the government has already followed through with all other options in terms of cutting spending, then I can see having to cut welfare in order to tighten the budget.

However, as you stated, most (if not all >.>) governments have many, many places they are flushing money down that serve less of a purpose than welfare (or other things such as education) or no purpose other than to be a money sink.

As a USA-ian, I can list off things that get billions of dollars from my government that really, really, really don't need it at all. I can likewise think of plenty of things that deserve the money more (infrastructure, education, etc.)

The most I can do to have a say in where the taxes I pay go to is to vote in people who share my views in terms of spending.

Or run for the position myself. Unfortunately, I'm too blunt, too much of a smart-ass, and have very little tact when dealing with ignorance, arrogance, or straight up stupidity. I don't think I'd get many votes.

[AccountingDrone]

I always thought that for the unemployed mothers they should do what a few communities do for elderly - they have a senior center where you can hang out and get a hot lunch, play cards or watch TV for a few hours during the day. If they cut the cash going to the moms and kids and substituted a hot meal and some activity time for them out of the home during the middle of the day [sort of like a giant lunch and play date, NOT babysitting, the mom has got to be there with the kid.] I think they could save money that way, and see that everybody actually got a meal instead of trading the resource for drugs or stuff not on the list of approved foods.

[but then again, I always thought that they should just take the abandoned properties and dole them out in lieu of the section 8 money. Make them actually live in community owned property and do little chores around the area in exchange for the living space. Heck, let them live in the equivalent to college dorms and eat in the chow hall. Works for a heck of a lot of people for their college years. You don't want to work? Move in for the 5 years or so until the kid is in school, then you get 1 year to find a job and a flat and move out.]

[Nyoibo]

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/who-ar...312-2fyf3.html

A fairly good summation of the welfare in Australia, ironically I just stumbled across this.

[fireheart17]

That's been done, in the Northern Territory. "The Intervention" Basically, a lot of aboriginal welfare recipients were not buying necessities with it, and letting their kids scrounge for their own food. Payments were stopped and services were given instead.

So it's not as ludicrous as it seems.

Some aspects of the intervention still remain in those areas.

Examples off the top of my head include:

-Community pools are often built on the school campus. They often tend to institute a "no school, no pool" rule.
-Alcohol use is either banned or restricted heavily.

Down here at least, they have introduced a BasicsCard program for anyone who's on welfare payments. Basically, the bills and that are paid out of your welfare payment. What's left over is put onto a card and you can spend it on certain items.
The card itself has blocks in place to prevent people from buying cigarettes, porn, alcohol, lottery/scratchies and homebrew stuff. There are also a couple of other blocks which are meant to be store-enforced.
The card also prevents people from getting cash out on the card, buying gift vouchers with it and getting cash refunds. If you need a refund on a product, it goes back on your card.

At this stage it's optional for MOST groups. Those people who are identified as needing it (i.e. alcoholics, gamblers, drug-dependent folks etc.) have been put on it.

As for the whole "Mum finding a job once kidlet turns 8" thing, the problem with the general public and the government is the assumption that jobs just fall out of the sky for people who want them. Believe it or not, you do have to be hired by the company and Centrelink don't care if you don't get hired. (part of me wishes that they would hold businesses accountable by calling them up and demanding to know why)

[Aethian]

Michigan is starting up something that I LOVE, if the kids miss too much time in school the ben idiots the parent(s) receive will go down. This is for kids ages 4.5 years and up to 18. The before 5 is because the kid should be I a preschool so the parent(s) can find/go to work. One of the home day cares I deliver to has already started filling out paperwork to become a home preschool for her 3 and 4 year olds that she watches. Already having a clock in/out system used on each kid, so she can charge by the day or by the 15 mins.


Now if the kid is out due to medical issues then the parent(s) can submit hospital records to not get the reduction in payments. Note this does not change the rent assistance that goes to the landlord/complex. It also doesn't change food stamps but it will stop the cash assistance which I never agreed to in the first place.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

The before 5 is because the kid should be I a preschool so the parent(s) can find/go to work.

That's all well and good but.. uhm...

...pre-school costs money. You have to pay a tuition to be able to put your child into a pre-school/nursery school. They aren't free like public schools/kindergarten.

So what money is the parent supposed to use to pay the tuition for the kidlet so that they can go out and find work to pay the bills?

[Aethian]

That's all well and good but.. uhm...

...pre-school costs money. You have to pay a tuition to be able to put your child into a pre-school/nursery school. They aren't free like public schools/kindergarten.

So what money is the parent supposed to use to pay the tuition for the kidlet so that they can go out and find work to pay the bills?

There is a program for those who make under a certain amount where the state will pay a certain pre agreed amount to a caregiver who then has to show that the child was in their care from time to time.

And some of the schools around here DO have preschool as part of the public school.

[BlaqueKatt]

There is a program for those who make under a certain amount where the state will pay a certain pre agreed amount to a caregiver who then has to show that the child was in their care from time to time.

I know here in WI the county paid 80% of childcare, which is around $1000/month per child-and the cutoff is "minimum wage" so:

7.75x40=310
310x4=1240

a two bedroom apartment runs around $800

1240-800=440
440-200=240

$240 to pay, electric, transportation(bus pass here is $60), laundry, medical co-pays, and groceries, for two people, if you have more kids-you're working to stay in debt.

[smileyeagle1021]

Also on a related note, it's not your money, saying that tax money is yours is the same as saying that rates money, electricity and phone money is yours once its gone to the company, it's not your money and you don't get a say in what happens to it.

Umm, excuse me, but that's absurd. Did I or did I not have to work to earn it? I already know the answer to that, and that is yes, I did have to work to earn it, so frankly, it's mine, my work, my reward. When I pay part of that money to NV Energy, I do so in exchange for electricity and gas, when I pay part of that to Washoe County Water Authority it is in exchange for water and sewer service, when I pay part of that to AT&T it is in exchange for internet and TV, when I pay part of it to Verizon it is in exchange for wireless phone service... all these have something in common, they are in exchange for products and services I am using.
Yet, when we get to taxes, something strange happens, indeed part of it is used on services I use, I certainly do appreciate the roads I drive on, the buses I ride, the police and fire protection I receive, the schools that I used and eventually my children will use, etc, but then they say, oh, and in addition, we want you to pay for people who aren't working so they too can buy goods and services. I do not begrudge the people who legitimately can't work (such as because of disability) or those who work but can't make ends meet, but the whole idea that there isn't work to be done is outrageous. Last I checked there is always trash on the side of the roads, always schools needing repairs, always something that needs to be done. It is true that jobs are scarce, but that is not an excuse to forgive people the obligation to earn their money when there is work available. My father in law has proposed for a long time, and I have grown to agree with him, that a condition of welfare should include volunteer work (such as cleaning highways) if the person does not have a disability or a job that they are using welfare to supplement, because frankly, I (and everyone else who earns our money, including those who need welfare payments to bridge the gap to make ends meet) would feel a lot better about paying it out in exchange for needed work in our communities rather than being forced to just give it away.

[fireheart17]

My father in law has proposed for a long time, and I have grown to agree with him, that a condition of welfare should include volunteer work (such as cleaning highways) if the person does not have a disability or a job that they are using welfare to supplement, because frankly, I (and everyone else who earns our money, including those who need welfare payments to bridge the gap to make ends meet) would feel a lot better about paying it out in exchange for needed work in our communities rather than being forced to just give it away.

The system down here does actually do this to some extent.

You do need to do an activity of some sort (or multiple activities) to continue to receive payments. Some of the activities can include:

-Volunteer work.
-Work experience (that's organised by the job agency you're with, NOT on your own, so you are protected)
-Being sent for training which may include on-the-job training (friend of mine is doing this, he's doing bartending)
-Job hunting (usually you are obligated to find a certain number of jobs per week/fortnight/month)
-Taking part in "Work For The Dole" activities (although I think this has been suspended to some extent, since the focus is on trying to use those skills that the employees have, not simply using them as a means of free garbage pickup. That's usually reserved for those who've committed a crime)

This is reviewed every so often both over the phone and in person. If you fail to meet any of those obligations, your payment gets suspended.

Those on disability are assessed for their capacity to work (this can also include people with psychiatric issues). The requirements are still there, but are generally relaxed and more assistance is provided to them.

As far as childcare costs go, the government down here covers that as well to some extent: parents who have their kids in daycare, after school care, before school care or vacation care, up to the age of 13, can claim the child care rebate, which subsidises the cost to some extent.

part of me really wishes that they'd bring back the requirement that your kid needed to be immunised to receive said payments though (with exceptions for VALID medical reasons i.e. kid has severe reaction to it or kid has a compromised immune system, not simply because the parent claims to have "educated" themselves. I normally wouldn't say something along those lines, but when the number of "objectors" jumped up to 30,000 over the last 5 years (previously it was around maybe 100-200), you do start to get worried)