zaph

Swiss to vote on universal basic income

28 posts in this topic

59 minutes ago, zaph said:

Most people spend most of their lives working or studying. Perhaps people who spend their whole lives on the dole don't deserve a pay rise just because they turn 65/67? What about a woman who spends half her working life raising kids - should she get half the pension of a spinster? Should a high income earner (and high tax payer) get more pension than a low earner? I'm not having a go here - they are genuine questions. 

My parents have a belief that they worked their whole lives paying taxes and deserve, yes, deserve a pension regardless of their means. 

You introduced 'junkies' into the discussion of welfare. I presume that is because you think drug use is over represented in welfare recipients? 

I believe in harm minimisation regarding drugs. Legal or illegal.

  • Harm reduction - eg we supply needles to users to reduce blood borne viruses.
  • Supply reduction - eg we limit the sale of alcohol. 
  • Demand reduction - eg we have programs to get 'junkies' off drugs. 

I have no idea what a bleeding heart approach is. I know that illegal drug use is VERY widespread and most drug users use occasionally and responsibly. Not all of course.

Ok.

I don't hold the Alan Jones approach that we should hunt down dole bludgers, tax cheats etc at any cost. If it's going to cost more to catch a cheat than they are receiving then just let it be. 

Countries with their own currency don't go bankrupt. Australia is a currency issuer. 

I'm selling up and moving to Cuba. If they'll have me. 

I have a problem with parents (single women, couples, etc) who chose to raise children on the expectation that they will be mostly supported by welfare.

I certainly would make an excuse for divorce after the children were born. But employment should be encouraged at the earliest opportunity. Contraception tends to work if applied correctly!

Your parents may think they're entitled to it, but it has to depend on their wealth. Social welfare is a ponzi scheme that depends on enough tax payers being able to support the rest. The aging population is making the ponzi scheme crash. I'm expecting $0.00 welfare when I retire and all my assets (including the house) to be consumed before the government will provide any welfare. People better get used to it.

You introduced junkies via introducing 'meth'.  If a user can maintain their habit without harming others or engage in criminal activities to support the addiction, then (IMO) it is his/her personal business. Otherwise, my view of harm minimisation is via forced cold turkey for an extended period. Too many relapses with the soft methods currently used. A junkie out of control is not someone I'd be soft with.

As I previously stated, the moment people know that welfare payments are not being monitored, the rorting will increase until the system breaks. It is normal huiman behaviour - a free financial lunch! This is why compliance was introduced. Here is another fine example of welfare being rorted, this time by the supplier of the service.

I honestly do not understand why it is so difficult to understand by some people that if you don't police welfare, it will be massively rorted. There are ample examples.

I can only assume you are joking regarding 'countries with their own currency don't go bankrupt'. Otherwise look at Zimbabwe, Argentina (multiple times), Venezuela. The best slow motion example currently is South Africa - from one of the strongest economies to now well on the road to another Zimbabwe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cobran20 said:

I have a problem with parents (single women, couples, etc) who chose to raise children on the expectation that they will be mostly supported by welfare.

I certainly would make an excuse for divorce after the children were born. But employment should be encouraged at the earliest opportunity. Contraception tends to work if applied correctly!

Your parents may think they're entitled to it, but it has to depend on their wealth. Social welfare is a ponzi scheme that depends on enough tax payers being able to support the rest. The aging population is making the ponzi scheme crash. I'm expecting $0.00 welfare when I retire and all my assets (including the house) to be consumed before the government will provide any welfare. People better get used to it.

You introduced junkies via introducing 'meth'.  If a user can maintain their habit without harming others or engage in criminal activities to support the addiction, then (IMO) it is his/her personal business. Otherwise, my view of harm minimisation is via forced cold turkey for an extended period. Too many relapses with the soft methods currently used. A junkie out of control is not someone I'd be soft with.

As I previously stated, the moment people know that welfare payments are not being monitored, the rorting will increase until the system breaks. It is normal huiman behaviour - a free financial lunch! This is why compliance was introduced. Here is another fine example of welfare being rorted, this time by the supplier of the service.

I honestly do not understand why it is so difficult to understand by some people that if you don't police welfare, it will be massively rorted. There are ample examples.

I can only assume you are joking regarding 'countries with their own currency don't go bankrupt'. Otherwise look at Zimbabwe, Argentina (multiple times), Venezuela. The best slow motion example currently is South Africa - from one of the strongest economies to now well on the road to another Zimbabwe.

You are a joke'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, zaph said:

You are a joke'

I do tend to make snowflakes melt. But I'm comfortable with it! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now