Debate:Welfare cheats

I work close to the NZ parliament and today, when walking home, I noticed a protest taking place on the parliament steps. I stopped one of the protesters to ask what was going on. It turns out the protest was over the fact the National government has stopped funding to adult night classes as part of a whole "belt tightening" process in this economic climate. I personally think its a bad idea, education is much needed in society and MP's should look at their own perks first. I looked at the protester, he seemed about 22 - 24 yrs old and his jacket and bag were covered in anti-capitalist insignia. I knew the type so I asked him what he did for a living, "Oh I dont have a job" he said. I asked if he was receiving government welfare, he said he did. I asked him why he doesnt have a job, "I quit my job about a year ago and just haven't got around to getting another one" was his response. I saw red and launced into him, "So what you are saying is, you dont pay tax, you are completely able-bodied and able to work but you don't and instead receive welfare? So tell me, what gives you the right to protest? I have the right as I work hard and pay my taxes. I dont pay taxes for you to sit on your ass, I pay taxes to fund programs like the one being cut. You are sitting round complaining about the fact the government is cutting funding for these programs yet you pay nothing towards them and take money that could be used to support such things. There is probably over 1000 people just like you in this city. If each of you received $100 per week (and I know its more like $180 - $250) thats $520,000 per annum being wasted on lay abouts like you. Go get a fucking job. and contribute something before complaining." It really pisses me off. And there have been a number of incidents like this recently and each time I get madder and madder. Ace McWickedModel 500 04:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It might surprise some (HI, Listener!) but I'm pretty much it total agreement with you on this Ace--guys like that give lefties/socialism a bad name, and make it easy for people to construct Regan-esque "welfare queen" arguments to justify tearing down the social safety net with. I may be a lefty, but I work and gripe when I have to pay my taxes--but i fuckin' work and I fuckin' pay them. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm currently unemployed and collecting unemployment insurance. I _could_ get a job bagging groceries or something, but I'm putting this off 'til the unemployment insurance runs out, while I try to find a job that pays half-decent. --Gulik (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But a least you'll try Gulik, this guy just "hadnt got around to it" yet still felt he had a right to complain. I believe you need a social welfare system, I have been on it but only briefly and I pay my taxes for the safety net not so lazy fucks can sit around smoking pot. Ace McWickedModel 500 04:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ace, did the radical fellow make a reply to your lengthy rant?
 * TOP, I am well aware that there is a difference between communism and welfare-statism, one being a world-view and the other being essentially a demand that "WE HAVE A RIGHT TO FREE MONEY!" 04:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I forgot - that was the funny part. He couldn't muster a word in his defence! Ace McWickedModel 500 04:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have locked horns with a few of those "portable activists" that the Reds sometimes bring in to leaflet the streets. A few well-placed questions and you can usually elicit either nonverbal gibbering or apoplectic ranting. 05:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You know what? I've been on welfare twice in my life. It saved my ass. And I never once so much as met one of these famous "welfare queens" that people say are fucking everywhere. I don't know where they're hiding, but it wasn't in my province, because all the folks on welfare I knew were trying to figure out how much food they could do without to afford a fucking phone so maybe, just maybe they could get a job. And I'll tell you, it's a deep hole when you're there, I only got out of it myself by good fortune of being able to take advantage of some programs that were cut less than six months later and a lot of persistence. Still looking for those welfare queens, though. --Kels (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and while welfare recipients, at least in Canada, don't pay income tax necessarily, they do pay the same sales taxes everyone else does, and unless they're in subsidized housing (usually not), then a portion of their rent usually goes into property taxes, so there is taxpaying being done. Just at a lower level. --Kels (talk) 05:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And auto registration fees, fuel taxes, and of course the taxes paid on every transaction (the income on the sale) they participate in. 05:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that and it saved my ass to once. Another example was a guy recently who went to court for jumping into one of the rescue helicopters and trying to start it because he found it unlocked. Again, totally able-bodied, young and could work but receiving welfare. The guy had been drinking all day at a upmarket establishment, got pissed and started some trouble. Some reporter spoke to him outside court and he said "I dont mind what I get. It'll probably be nothing, I mean - what can they do? Cut my benefit! hahahahahaahaha!" I thought - yes cut his fucking benefit! He sat around drinking all day, started trouble and went tp court which costs us taxpayers even more money on top of his benefit! Ace McWickedModel 500 05:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I recall some years ago there was a big freakout about welfare cheats in Saskatchewan, I think. The Conservatives (who else?) were all up in arms and getting people stirred up about all these cheats on the rolls, what with fake names and double dipping and welfare queens and all the usual boogeymen.  So the government ended up doing a thorough accounting of just how many cheats they were dealing with and how much money was involved.  And when the dust settled...there were so few cheats in the entire province that it would have cost far more to prosecute than to just leave things as they were. --Kels (talk) 05:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was on food stamps for about 8 months. I would've been living out of my car if not for that. Unfortunately, I have actually seen "welfare queens" in the flesh. A few months ago I was at the DSS to refile all my paperwork, and there were two women in line ahead of me talking loudly about getting their hair and nails done once they got their check. That's the only time I've ever heard someone admit to abusing the system though, and it happened to be right in the building.--PitchBlackMind (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One comment. It should be noted that he should receive welfare in some form because he has trouble talking cohorently.  The situation goes like this:
 * The protest is about shutting down the night classes and he quitted his job. Was he trying to get more schooling?
 * If he is, are you saying that students aren't entitled to protests?
 * If he is not, he has trouble structuring his arguments; perhaps he should be receiving welfare as one of those mentally challenged.
 * Ok, this may be insulting to both Ace and the guy he's talking to. Perhaps I said too much.   23:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say that they are quite entitled to their protests but that no one is obligated, morally, legally, or otherwise, to listen to them. 23:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the main point is that it pisses a lot of people off when you have little socialist weasels that protest the shutting down of something they're not paying for, when they're probably not aware that if they lived in a socialist/communist country they wouldn't get fuck all because they'd be classed as a non-working and therefore useless citizen. 10:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have a social security system, of course there will always be a percentage of people who take advantage of it ('scroungers'). Left-wing people have enough faith in human nature to believe that that percentage will be small enough that the benefit of welfare outweighs that disadvantage. That's one fundamental difference between left- and right-wing.-- 10:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a liberal (big surprise) and I do support the welfare system for basically the reason you just made Kriss, but I think there should be some restrictions on it to minimise the amount of people that do take advantage and don't even try and get a fucking job without good reason. As far the difference between left and right, you really notice that in Britain - especially with the newspapers. The Daily Mail and Express are both extreme conservative and they fucking hate immigrants and welfare and love censorship. 10:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not a liberal, I am a centerist and hence I am of the opinion that if you are to complain about how the government is spending the tax dollar you need to have contributed to that purse before deciding you disagree how it is spent. As a tax payer I believe my money should go to where it is needed, not to those who give no investment in society by choice as opposed to necessity . Ace McWickedModel 500 10:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I concurr. 10:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really agree with you Ace - that was the kind of argument that used to be used to defend the property qualification for suffrage (ie only the rich could vote). You don't need to pay tax to have a stake in society. And as Kels pointed out, there are other taxes besides income tax that everyone pays - sales taxes, alcohol and cigarette duty and so on.-- 10:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel a debate stirring. Move to debate page? 10:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I put that the tax revenue is the State's money, not the taxpayers'. 16:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit button. A position is staked out
Here's the thing--if you have a welfare system, you're going to have cheats and fraud and douchebags like Mr. Kiwi Protestor. No matter how well you police the system, people will abuse it; hopefully, if you run it well enough, as someone pointed out above, it won't be worth dealing with those who got through the various protective measures put in place. The question is, is anybody really so tied to libertarian/fiscally conservative ideals that they're willing to see individuals and families starve on the street for the sake of protecting a few tax dollars? Charity is ultimately uncertain, not guaranteed, and closely tied to the religious, moralistic and political viewpoints of the people who give it out. If you want a decent society, you need a welfare system and you need to swallow the fact that some people are gonna rip it off sometimes. 'Cause if you don't feed and house those people who can't feed and house themselves, not only are you living in an immoral shit-hole of a society, it's only a matter of time before they come for your food and house. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not generally a fan of welfare, but from the perspective of saving the State's money, it does often cost more to bankroll a campaign to rout the welfare cheats than it saves to kick them off welfare. 15:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As someone who has worked in an Unemployment Benefit Office (in the UK) I've seen the cheats, the rip off merchants queueing up for their hand outs and, yes, it made me bitter about the taxes on my hard earned wages but, quite frankly, ToP has it right. Unless you're one of those libertarians who believes in social dawinism then there has to be a balance between ease of ripping off the system and genuine hardship to those who need support. Quite frankly, here in the UK, I think we've got it about as right as it gets. Bob Soles (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Unemployment benefits are not even marginally as abused as disability benefits here (UK). There are far too many people who sit on their arse claiming they're too sick to work, while spending their cash on 5-a-side matches and pub trips with their mates. 13:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh also, while the wife was working as a probation services officer, she'd get unemployed offenders in bitching about asylum seekers and Eastern Europeans "stealing all our jobs". When she pointed out that they mainly do the menial tasks like leek picking and that there are always those jobs available, she'd get the reply "Nah, I make more on benefits than if I did that". 13:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

pity us paupers
As some one who has spent long periods out of work claiming benefits I feel should give my opinions.
 * 1. Everyone can point to some one and say 'this chap is just scrounging'. They may be right but from personal experience I believe these people are minority. Few people enjoy the dole - it is a pretty grim experience.
 * 2. There is an assumption that they can actually find work if they just tried. Most are trying, and failing. It is tough to find work when you have few to no qualifications, and even supermarket require x amount of experience to stack shelves (not an exageration, i have seen this in job centres).
 * 3. The longer you are out work the harder it is get work. Any experience you have gained becomes less and less meaningful, your work history on your CV starts to look really bad, and I can't stress enough how soul destroying it is to apply for job after job and not even get a reply.
 * 4. job centres are just shit at getting people work. Many jobs advertised there bar you from applying unless you have been unemployed for 6 months +. Some companies only advertise at the job centre because they have to and usually never employ job centre applicants. I had a friend who was an HR manager for a national retailer who told me this. He said the job centre send applicants who are just cannot do the advertised job. They won't even send to send for training course to improve your lot until after six months.
 * 5. If you are getting housing support and other such benefits, the crappy jobs that you might just have a shot enough do not pay enough to cover the loss of these benefits. Why take a job if it means you be will be evicted? I understand there has been some attempts to rectify this, but its still an issue.
 * 6. There are employment agencies who can and do help folk find work. I have much experience with these. You get sent to a factory and if you are lucky you might still be there at the end of the week. If you make a good impression you might avoid getting laid off for a month or two. I spent several years working like this, with gaps of a week to a month throughout. (I am currently signed with as agencies in London as will have me - they are dry). Working through these agencies you get to recognise many of the people I used to see at the job centre so I know they are at making an effort. And these were not soft jobs - it was physically hard, back breaking work in nasty and unpleasant conditions - I have hearing problems as a result of working these places.

Now, after more or less steady employment for the last 6 years, I find myself unemployed again - for about 3 months now. I have to say it is harder than I have ever known it find work and the cost of living is higher.

So please do not assume someone on the dole is some work shy scrounger, because more often than not, they aren't.

(I personally am not claiming any dole. My friend, who is genuinely on disability benefits, is allowing to me couch surf at his flat. A claim by me could fuck up his housing.)