- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 64,077
- Points
- 113
The problem with Sinkies is that they haven't seen "social welfare" up close and personal whereas I have witnessed first hand where all my tax dollars go.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Welfare in Singapore: The stingy nanny - The Economist
- Thread starter SNAblog
- Start date
The problem with Sinkies is that they haven't seen "social welfare" up close and personal whereas I have witnessed first hand where all my tax dollars go.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 64,077
- Points
- 113
New Zealand welfare agency uses Facebook to catch fraudsters
March 29th, 2009
<!-- google_ad_section_end --> WELLINGTON - New Zealand's government welfare agency has confirmed it examines internet social network sites like Facebook to catch benefit fraudsters, a newspaper reported Sunday.
Lauren Kaney, 22, of Mount Maunganui, was convicted in court last week of getting three times the weekly benefit she was entitled to, after claiming she lived on her own with her 2-year-old-son.
In fact, her Bebo and Facebook pages revealed she was living with the boy's father, the Herald on Sunday reported.
Kaney admitted receiving 17,500 New Zealand dollars (nearly $10,000) more than her entitlement and was sentenced to four months' home detention and 200 hours of community service.
She told the paper it was a big surprise when she was caught after Ministry of Social Development investigators looked at her Bebo page.
'I didn't ever think they would look me up like that,' she said. It's not really fair of them to do that, but it wasn't fair of me to rip them off in the first place.'
Minister of Social Development Paula Bennett has asked ministry staff to prepare a report on benefit fraud, which costs taxpayers about 60 million New Zealand dollars a year, the paper said.
March 29th, 2009
<!-- google_ad_section_end --> WELLINGTON - New Zealand's government welfare agency has confirmed it examines internet social network sites like Facebook to catch benefit fraudsters, a newspaper reported Sunday.
Lauren Kaney, 22, of Mount Maunganui, was convicted in court last week of getting three times the weekly benefit she was entitled to, after claiming she lived on her own with her 2-year-old-son.
In fact, her Bebo and Facebook pages revealed she was living with the boy's father, the Herald on Sunday reported.
Kaney admitted receiving 17,500 New Zealand dollars (nearly $10,000) more than her entitlement and was sentenced to four months' home detention and 200 hours of community service.
She told the paper it was a big surprise when she was caught after Ministry of Social Development investigators looked at her Bebo page.
'I didn't ever think they would look me up like that,' she said. It's not really fair of them to do that, but it wasn't fair of me to rip them off in the first place.'
Minister of Social Development Paula Bennett has asked ministry staff to prepare a report on benefit fraud, which costs taxpayers about 60 million New Zealand dollars a year, the paper said.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 64,077
- Points
- 113
ACT will stop welfare abuse
A published by at 11:50am on 19 Jul 2005 in the following categories: Social Welfare.
A primary school principal was recently describing the disastrous behaviour of children at her decile one school. She explained how most of the children came from broken homes where most of the parents are on welfare. She said many of them arrived at school without eating breakfast and without a packed lunch and that many did not have clean clothes and had not washed or brushed their teeth.
What she was describing was the inevitable consequences of a welfare system that undermines the importance of the traditional family unit and has now gone completely off the rails. The Domestic Purposes Benefit, instead of providing temporary support to women if their marriages break down, is now being used by thousands of mothers to raise children on their own. When those mothers are teenagers themselves, the results are a social disaster.
What I cannot understand is why there is not a grater backlash against the damage that the welfare system is causing. On a daily basis, children are now being born in New Zealand into welfare families, where they are doomed to fail to thrive and achieve their real potential, unless they are very lucky. Academics and professionals working in the field, and law makers alike fail to blow the whistle on what is going on preferring to turn a blind eye.
ACT has campaigned for welfare reform since first entering Parliament in 1996. While other parties have echoed our call, effective welfare reform will not occur unless ACT is elected back to Parliament on election day.
The reason is simple. Most political parties are mindful that the beneficiary lobby is powerful: it’s not just those receiving benefits, but the army of groups that work with them that are nervous about the effects of welfare reform. As one, young sole parent advocate once put it: “but if those solo mothers go back to work, they won’t have a job and what will I do then?”
ACT would cap the benefit for sole parents so that more children did not mean more money. ACT would require a parent to get a job once the children were all at school. Full support would be provided in terms of after-school care, transport and the like, but with evidence clearly showing that children raised in working families do better than children in welfare families, getting a parent into the workforce has to be an urgent priority.
Back in 1973 when the DPB was first established, officials predicted that it would never exceed 20,000. But with over 100,000 currently on the sole parent benefit and a set of incentives that enable women who find it tough in the workforce to quit their job one day and go on the benefit to get more money the next, the need for change is now urgent.
But reform is needed in other areas of welfare as well, particularly the Sickness and Invalid Benefits. Back in 1970, there were 8,000 on the Sickness Benefit and 10,000 on the Invalid Benefit, a total of 18,000. Today, there are over 135,000 adults supported by the Sickness and Invalids Benefits.
Since 1970, the population has grown 44%. If the Sickness and Invalids Benefits had only grown at the same rate as the population, there would only be 26,000 adults, not 135,000,
on the so-called Sickness and Invalids Benefits.
Clearly this is another area where major abuse of the welfare system is occurring, not only by individuals who are ripping off the system, but by Labour who is allowing it to happen.
If welfare was reformed properly, and abuse of the system eliminated, New Zealand could afford lower taxes into the foreseeable future.
ACT is the only party that believes New Zealand can become a prosperous nation once more with a far higher standard of living through tax cuts and welfare reform; if you too believe that these are important changes that need to occur for the sake of the future of all New Zealanders, then please give you Party Vote to ACT on election day.
ENDS
A published by at 11:50am on 19 Jul 2005 in the following categories: Social Welfare.
A primary school principal was recently describing the disastrous behaviour of children at her decile one school. She explained how most of the children came from broken homes where most of the parents are on welfare. She said many of them arrived at school without eating breakfast and without a packed lunch and that many did not have clean clothes and had not washed or brushed their teeth.
What she was describing was the inevitable consequences of a welfare system that undermines the importance of the traditional family unit and has now gone completely off the rails. The Domestic Purposes Benefit, instead of providing temporary support to women if their marriages break down, is now being used by thousands of mothers to raise children on their own. When those mothers are teenagers themselves, the results are a social disaster.
What I cannot understand is why there is not a grater backlash against the damage that the welfare system is causing. On a daily basis, children are now being born in New Zealand into welfare families, where they are doomed to fail to thrive and achieve their real potential, unless they are very lucky. Academics and professionals working in the field, and law makers alike fail to blow the whistle on what is going on preferring to turn a blind eye.
ACT has campaigned for welfare reform since first entering Parliament in 1996. While other parties have echoed our call, effective welfare reform will not occur unless ACT is elected back to Parliament on election day.
The reason is simple. Most political parties are mindful that the beneficiary lobby is powerful: it’s not just those receiving benefits, but the army of groups that work with them that are nervous about the effects of welfare reform. As one, young sole parent advocate once put it: “but if those solo mothers go back to work, they won’t have a job and what will I do then?”
ACT would cap the benefit for sole parents so that more children did not mean more money. ACT would require a parent to get a job once the children were all at school. Full support would be provided in terms of after-school care, transport and the like, but with evidence clearly showing that children raised in working families do better than children in welfare families, getting a parent into the workforce has to be an urgent priority.
Back in 1973 when the DPB was first established, officials predicted that it would never exceed 20,000. But with over 100,000 currently on the sole parent benefit and a set of incentives that enable women who find it tough in the workforce to quit their job one day and go on the benefit to get more money the next, the need for change is now urgent.
But reform is needed in other areas of welfare as well, particularly the Sickness and Invalid Benefits. Back in 1970, there were 8,000 on the Sickness Benefit and 10,000 on the Invalid Benefit, a total of 18,000. Today, there are over 135,000 adults supported by the Sickness and Invalids Benefits.
Since 1970, the population has grown 44%. If the Sickness and Invalids Benefits had only grown at the same rate as the population, there would only be 26,000 adults, not 135,000,
on the so-called Sickness and Invalids Benefits.
Clearly this is another area where major abuse of the welfare system is occurring, not only by individuals who are ripping off the system, but by Labour who is allowing it to happen.
If welfare was reformed properly, and abuse of the system eliminated, New Zealand could afford lower taxes into the foreseeable future.
ACT is the only party that believes New Zealand can become a prosperous nation once more with a far higher standard of living through tax cuts and welfare reform; if you too believe that these are important changes that need to occur for the sake of the future of all New Zealanders, then please give you Party Vote to ACT on election day.
ENDS
The problem with Sinkies is that they haven't seen "social welfare" up close and personal whereas I have witnessed first hand where all my tax dollars go.
You are wrong there. Many Sinkies ARE seeing "social welfare" up close & personal. Except that in Spore its under a different name: World Class, eliteism,...
Wait a minute isn't that corruptions, cronyism,..? How can any lesser mortal know about social welfare when there is none in Spore
The tragedy of Humanity is when the have kicks the have nots down and blame them for their laziness.
I believe theres a god watching over us every day of our lives. Those try to give excuses about not helping the poor and down trodden would meet exactly that in time if not in time of judgment. For these people are those who have enjoyed the safety of their rich parents or lucky enough to be intelligent to get better paying jobs.
But that doesnt mean that another person should get a $800 - $1500 paying job for life. This is slavery and we know it. That is why the casino has been holding out for so long. Singaporeans know that these pay scale are uncivilised and if you want to treat people like dirt, you will get the same taste soon enough.
I believe theres a god watching over us every day of our lives. Those try to give excuses about not helping the poor and down trodden would meet exactly that in time if not in time of judgment. For these people are those who have enjoyed the safety of their rich parents or lucky enough to be intelligent to get better paying jobs.
But that doesnt mean that another person should get a $800 - $1500 paying job for life. This is slavery and we know it. That is why the casino has been holding out for so long. Singaporeans know that these pay scale are uncivilised and if you want to treat people like dirt, you will get the same taste soon enough.
Last edited:
the whole charade is that the upper class wants the lay persons like us to think that because we the poor, the unfortunate, the unintelligent deserve a salary that is below the ability to SPEND AND SAVE comfortably.
When the real logic is that the pay scale for "easy" low skill jobs should be around the $2000 - $3000 scale and not below that.
The rich and powerful and smart asses can command anything way above that and buy extra crap high class nonsense for all we care.
That is the truth and fairness they have been suppressing us. Someone high high above possibly the world bankers are dictating this and they will have to answer the common folks. And even the bribe media and high posts people here to convince us otherwise is futile.
We have reach a nadir of social inequality unseen in singapore. I hope the govt realise and increase the wage for the lower incomes and sort this deception and greed. If not I fear the worse is near for this country my forefathers have worked and defended for.
Shalom
When the real logic is that the pay scale for "easy" low skill jobs should be around the $2000 - $3000 scale and not below that.
The rich and powerful and smart asses can command anything way above that and buy extra crap high class nonsense for all we care.
That is the truth and fairness they have been suppressing us. Someone high high above possibly the world bankers are dictating this and they will have to answer the common folks. And even the bribe media and high posts people here to convince us otherwise is futile.
We have reach a nadir of social inequality unseen in singapore. I hope the govt realise and increase the wage for the lower incomes and sort this deception and greed. If not I fear the worse is near for this country my forefathers have worked and defended for.
Shalom
Last edited:
Like I said the rich can do whatever they want. whatever. They can even buy a studio apartment and park their Bentley outside their newly HDB implemented reserved lot for all I care.
Its the people that equate the poor as most likely to be lazy that I feel is purely evil talk.
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2009
- Messages
- 1,482
- Points
- 0
Let them eat cakes whilst we sharpen the guilottines and when the day comes, REJOICE !!!
Some people are so out of touch that they completely dismissed the poor as cockroaches to be squashed under their shoes.
----
You witnessed a percentage of your tax dollars going to the "poor and useless" and the rest were for your own benefit of living in a first-world atmosphere. Your paltry contributions are laughable if not so wicked. Since you are keen on cycling, you may have to watch out for the next puddle for it just might swallow you up in retribution.
Last edited:
it has never dawn on them that earning say, $1200 a month, is an utter and complete waste of a meaningful life. To them, this salary is a punishment for being "lowly educated", for not studying hard enough during school, when the education system is such that the O levels examiners grade you behind closed doors and dont let you see the papers but the results. You may cheat us during our innocence of youth but not forever.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 64,077
- Points
- 113
"Lazy" isn't the appropriate word. There are many amongst the poor who work very hard.
The problem with the poor is not laziness. It's the absolute lack of motivation when it comes to improving their lives.
On more than one occasion, I have offered to literally hand over a business to a chosen member of my salaried workforce on very favourable terms with no money required up front. I have never had a single taker.
These same people spend 50 bucks a week on Lotto (the Toto equivalent) hoping to become rich overnight but they turn down an opportunity which offers a more than 30% chance of making big money and better than even chance of being comfortably well off.
I ended up listing the businesses with a broker and made the money myself.
The poor remain so because they choose their lot. On the other hand, I've seen many poor become rich simply because they don't want to be poor so they do something about it.
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Los Angeles, the second-largest city in the United States, is confronting a mounting budget deficit that threatens to force thousands of job cuts, deplete its fiscal reserve and further damage its credit rating.
U.S.
The $212 million budget shortfall, projected to more than double next year, is attributed mainly to plunging tax revenue blamed on the region's sagging economy, falling property values and a 15 percent jobless rate -- one of the highest of any major U.S. city.
"The last time we saw this kind of drop in revenue was the Great Depression," Miguel Santana, the city's chief financial officer, told Reuters. "It speaks to how severe this budget crisis is."
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and other senior city officials spoke on Friday with executives at Fitch Ratings, seeking to forestall a further diminution of Los Angeles' credit-worthiness.
The city was downgraded late last year from a top rating of "AAA" to "AA-" as serious budget problems loomed.
One major concern for holders of municipal debt is a plan by the city to use most of its $230 million reserve to close its current budget shortfall, Santana said.
He added the city plans to replenish its reserve in part by leasing out its parking garages to private operators. But analysts said sharp revenue declines leave Los Angeles with relatively few options.
"It's pretty simple. They are going to need to make some serious spending cuts," said Ian Carroll of Standard & Poor's.
LAYOFFS OR PAY CUTS?
The crisis has put Villaraigosa, a former labor activist, squarely at odds with unions that represent 98 percent of L.A.'s municipal work force, which in turn accounts for 80 percent of the city budget.
Villaraigosa said last week he will propose the elimination of 1,200 to 2,000 city government jobs in next year's budget, on top of 1,000 positions the mayor last week ordered to be cut over the next few months.
He hopes to achieve some cuts through attrition and by moving some workers into vacant positions in self-supporting agencies, such as the Department of Water and Power. But Villaraigosa has acknowledged that as many as 350 employees will likely be terminated in the initial round of cuts.
He also has suggested that large layoffs could be avoided if the unions were willing to accept pay cuts.
"If everybody took a 5 percent cut, it would add $150 million to the general fund," the mayor said on Thursday at an event sponsored by the local business leaders.
Union officials have bristled at those proposals.
"We find it ironic that at the same time Congress is debating a jobs bill, the mayor of one of the largest cities in the country is talking about laying off 3,000 people," said Barbara Maynard, spokeswoman for the Coalition of L.A. City Unions. "The last thing Los Angeles or any city needs is to have more people on the unemployment line."
She said before considering layoffs and pay cuts, the city should seek reductions from some of the $2.5 billion it pays for work performed by private contractors.
Private law firms that bill the city for hundreds of dollars an hour, for example, "can certainly afford a pay cut more than a worker who is making $15 an hour," she said.
Unions are still smarting from concessions recently negotiated with the city to pare back most of a $400 million shortfall in the municipal pension system caused by losses on Wall Street. A key part of that deal was an early retirement package that moved 2,400 employees off the city payroll.
For now, Villaraigosa has said he intends to keep police officers and firefighters exempt from the job cuts he is seeking, even though police and fire protection accounts for 75 percent of the city's general fund.
In the end he vowed to do what was necessary to get the city's financial house in order.
"There is no scenario, none, while I am mayor of Los Angeles where this city will ever be bankrupt," he said. "I can guarantee that."
The ang mos want us to follow their example.
Once we started it there's no turning back, Singaporeans are "chao kuan", anything that's free they would queue for it. At the end of the day, who is going to for a;; this freebies,it would mean higher GST that's all.
U.S.
The $212 million budget shortfall, projected to more than double next year, is attributed mainly to plunging tax revenue blamed on the region's sagging economy, falling property values and a 15 percent jobless rate -- one of the highest of any major U.S. city.
"The last time we saw this kind of drop in revenue was the Great Depression," Miguel Santana, the city's chief financial officer, told Reuters. "It speaks to how severe this budget crisis is."
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and other senior city officials spoke on Friday with executives at Fitch Ratings, seeking to forestall a further diminution of Los Angeles' credit-worthiness.
The city was downgraded late last year from a top rating of "AAA" to "AA-" as serious budget problems loomed.
One major concern for holders of municipal debt is a plan by the city to use most of its $230 million reserve to close its current budget shortfall, Santana said.
He added the city plans to replenish its reserve in part by leasing out its parking garages to private operators. But analysts said sharp revenue declines leave Los Angeles with relatively few options.
"It's pretty simple. They are going to need to make some serious spending cuts," said Ian Carroll of Standard & Poor's.
LAYOFFS OR PAY CUTS?
The crisis has put Villaraigosa, a former labor activist, squarely at odds with unions that represent 98 percent of L.A.'s municipal work force, which in turn accounts for 80 percent of the city budget.
Villaraigosa said last week he will propose the elimination of 1,200 to 2,000 city government jobs in next year's budget, on top of 1,000 positions the mayor last week ordered to be cut over the next few months.
He hopes to achieve some cuts through attrition and by moving some workers into vacant positions in self-supporting agencies, such as the Department of Water and Power. But Villaraigosa has acknowledged that as many as 350 employees will likely be terminated in the initial round of cuts.
He also has suggested that large layoffs could be avoided if the unions were willing to accept pay cuts.
"If everybody took a 5 percent cut, it would add $150 million to the general fund," the mayor said on Thursday at an event sponsored by the local business leaders.
Union officials have bristled at those proposals.
"We find it ironic that at the same time Congress is debating a jobs bill, the mayor of one of the largest cities in the country is talking about laying off 3,000 people," said Barbara Maynard, spokeswoman for the Coalition of L.A. City Unions. "The last thing Los Angeles or any city needs is to have more people on the unemployment line."
She said before considering layoffs and pay cuts, the city should seek reductions from some of the $2.5 billion it pays for work performed by private contractors.
Private law firms that bill the city for hundreds of dollars an hour, for example, "can certainly afford a pay cut more than a worker who is making $15 an hour," she said.
Unions are still smarting from concessions recently negotiated with the city to pare back most of a $400 million shortfall in the municipal pension system caused by losses on Wall Street. A key part of that deal was an early retirement package that moved 2,400 employees off the city payroll.
For now, Villaraigosa has said he intends to keep police officers and firefighters exempt from the job cuts he is seeking, even though police and fire protection accounts for 75 percent of the city's general fund.
In the end he vowed to do what was necessary to get the city's financial house in order.
"There is no scenario, none, while I am mayor of Los Angeles where this city will ever be bankrupt," he said. "I can guarantee that."
The ang mos want us to follow their example.
Once we started it there's no turning back, Singaporeans are "chao kuan", anything that's free they would queue for it. At the end of the day, who is going to for a;; this freebies,it would mean higher GST that's all.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2008
- Messages
- 647
- Points
- 0
Does getting rich through scams count as motivation? Take Madoff for example. There are plenty of such "motivated" people around but many are never caught or they declare bankrupt and can't/won't repay a single cent they defrauded.
I am not against social welfare. It is just that it is difficult to weed out those who breed like rabbits in order to claim more welfare benefits. These people are sponging off the system but it is difficult to deprive them because it will make their kids suffer as well.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 64,077
- Points
- 113
It is motivation but it's of the misguided variety. There are so many way of getting rich legally I see no reason why anyone should risk getting caught and going to jail for the sake of money.
Social welfare is a grand concept but in order to make it work, there should be an absolute limit set for each citizen. $10,000 - $20,000 and that's it!.. no more. It'll then be a leg up rather than a perpetual crutch.
To all those sinkies who clamour for help for the poor, I suggest that there is nothing to stop any of you from helping the poor directly. Those who really care can easily "adopt" a couple of poor families and provide direct financial assistance rather than channel your money through the govt treasury.
Whinging about the govt doing nothing in an on line forum is just a cop out. Talk is cheap. Put your money (and time) where your mouth is help some poor people for a change.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2008
- Messages
- 89,368
- Points
- 113
Our government is made up of a bunch of selfish pragmatists who lack compassion.
Nobody with half a brain is asking for a welfare system that distributes resources indiscriminately based on a system where no questions are asked or merely because an application is made.
By all means go and investigate the real situation, but once this is done, make sure that all your citizens have a basic decent life, which is what the government is supposed to do, as opposed to making the country and the elites richer.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 64,077
- Points
- 113
It is not the government's job to ensure that everyone has a decent life. There are far too many useless people in society for that to ever happen anyway no matter what the govt did for them.
It's up to individuals to choose what sort of life they want to lead and then make personal decisions that will enable them to reach their goals. The govt's role is simply to provide the opportunities and in that respect, the PAP has done a fantastic job.
In other words, you benefit only if you become jobless. Gives you more reason to quit in a huff. Says a lot about the reward structure.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2008
- Messages
- 89,368
- Points
- 113
Not everyone who is down in life is lazy or lacks motivation. This is exactly the kind of thinking propagated by the pappies.It is not the government's job to ensure that everyone has a decent life. There are far too many useless people in society for that to ever happen anyway no matter what the govt did for them.
It's up to individuals to choose what sort of life they want to lead and then make personal decisions that will enable them to reach their goals. The govt's role is simply to provide the opportunities and in that respect, the PAP has done a fantastic job.
Some people have really hit hard times due to illnesses or disabilities to themselves or their families or have worked really hard but for some reason or other, failed in their businesses or ventures.
I really hope that some of the comments you make are tongue-in-cheek.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2008
- Messages
- 647
- Points
- 0
I find that very hard to believe.
I don't think the PAP government has been particularly kind to small business owners and the little guys, to put it mildly. Besides, the people don't just vote for the government to provide opportunities, they also expect the government to provide their needs and wants. In SG's case, it has mostly been about the bottomline to the exclusion of everything else.
The political system also does nothing to ensure that the minority voters are represented adequately.
I find that very hard to believe.
I don't think the PAP government has been particularly kind to small business owners and the little guys, to put it mildly. Besides, the people don't just vote for the government to provide opportunities, they also expect the government to provide their needs and wants. In SG's case, it has mostly been about the bottomline to the exclusion of everything else.
The political system also does nothing to ensure that the minority voters are represented adequately.
I am not saying that the PAP Government is perfect. However there are no suitable alternatives around, despite 25 years of established opposition.
The basic needs of the citizen are provided for. This is more than can be said of other countries. There will always be the poor but so far, no poor died of starvation or lack of basic medical care. This is not to say that things cannot be better.
If people expect the government to provide their needs and wants, then they might as well expect the government to put food into their mouths. However the self-help program by the government took care of the medical, housing and old age needs of the citizen. This again contrast favourably with other countries.
As for minority voters, one question i would ask is if these minority voters are loyal to the concept of Singapore or are they loyal to the concept of their own community. Until i am clear about this fundamental answer, i will just read and try to understand.
Last edited:
Similar threads
