Welfare, My Perspective

Welfare, My Perspective

I felt compelled to pen the following given the unfortunate attitude that I've seen being exhibited by so many here in New Zealand who have a beef with the welfare system or certain ones who're on a benefit — yes, armchair critics with no coal face experience and who've probably never been on a benefit, nor had need of a lower rental government house, for that matter. And let's remember too, that for those who have been there, been there is a very different experience for many people.
It has been my personal experience that those who are the most vocal in their condemnation are those who have been blessed with a nice home and car, savings in their bank account, and so on, and fair enough too, because there's  nothing wrong with such things. But midst their good fortune, their holidays abroad, say, their two cars perhaps, even a batch somewhere, they bitterly complain about being overtaxed and turn on the welfare system or certain ones who're on a benefit.
Such people remind me of someone who's complaining because someone has taken the little crusty ring off the top of their apple pie. Haven't they still got their pie? If I were them, I would just be focusing on enjoying what I have, not complaining lest an earthquake or personal tragedy rob such from me. In other words, let's appreciate what we have while we've got it rather than looking at what others supposedly are taking from us. Such people also remind me of someone who has a generously laden apple tree on their property of which they're observing with binoculars and complaining because their poorer neighbour has just taken some apples off a branch that was hanging over their side of the fence. Perhaps twenty apples to the observers three hundred. And yet, look who's counting.
I remember bumping into someone we know (a number of years back, that is) who casually asked (as people do) how I and my family were. "Oh, we're battling along," I replied, given that we rented a government house, had a number of kids, no money in the bank, and were barely getting by. "Yes, we're struggling too," she said, and then continued, "I lost my job recently, so just hubby is working now."
Here they were, lovely home in a relatively expensive area, another home elsewhere as well, two cars, a boat, a holiday batch somewhere where they went for regular breaks, husband on a very good wage, and to add insult to injury, a few weeks later headed overseas for another holiday. Struggling? You've got to be kidding, I thought, their house no doubt paid off given their ages and incomes. The truth of the matter is that they really had no idea of what struggling is all about.  Imagine not being able to afford to go to the doctor. Such people are simply struggling (if you can call it that) because they're trying to keep up with a certain standard of living that they desire but hardly need. 

As far as those who are in fact ripping off the welfare system go (and draining money), let's remember that there are people ripping off the system in general everywhere, many at the top and employed. And then there are the likes of drunk drivers (many employed and doing nicely too) who cost the country millions and millions every year, and who also create victims who also take up more hospital beds and drain more money. Adding to the drain on taxpayer's money are those who're injured whilst involved in extreme sports or foolish ventures; those who're injured whilst committing crime; those who're injured whilst carousing (not to mention that injury to their victims); and those who due to wilfully abusing their health (be that through diet, drugs, smoking, etc) end up requiring medical assistance and/or a hospital bed. Shall I go on?
And let's not forget those who make money from another's misfortune or ill-health (via excessive fees); the likes of plastic surgeons who play on the beauty thing, charging and pocketing scurrilous amounts of money; wealthy people receiving entitlements they don't need (at the expense of the taxpayer); those who go on strike in order to get a wage increase when they're already on a good wage; landlords who hike rents after an earthquake; those CEOs on salaries that are clearly unjustifiable and quite appalling, and then there are undertakers. Yes, so many are on the make one way or another, or are getting what they hardly need, or what they shouldn't get. And how many businesses put profit before people via unreasonable mark-ups? And amongst all this, I guess you've heard of corporate welfare.
As far as bludgers go (a nickname given to some on a benefit), surely bludgers come in many forms. How many people (especially those who're well off) put their hands up and say, "Seen as it was my own fault, I will pay the cost," or, "Seen as I don't need it, I won't take it."
In my experience I have found the most kind-hearted, generous and sacrificing people to be those who're lacking in material wealth. And the most penny pinching, penny conscious, to be those who don't need to be so. Hence why many of them visit the op-shops depleting those shops of clothing (they've picked over) that was intended for those who're poor. I mean poor! Many (via such) are getting cream on top of their cake, a cake that may be said to already have cream on it when compared to the lot of others who don't even have a cake.
My wife and I were told of a lady who used to visit such shops in her Mercedes Benz, believe it or not. Well, they do take a lot to run, don't they? I thought it was a Rolls Royce, just quietly, but my wife's memory is generally better, so a Mercedes Benz it is. However, as time has gone by, there's now a string of expensive cars parked nearby. So what might that be saying? Greed, possibly? Cream on one's cake? If you've been around town, you know some of these people (like I do), and that they're not in such need.
And again, there are people who own a second hand furniture shop, a used clothing shop, a second hand book or cd store, who frequent the op shops getting stuff that they then sell in their shop for way more than they paid. Where's their morality?
And while I'm on the subject, I knew a doctor with two homes and a working wife who likewise visited such shops. And yet, here we are fixated on beneficiaries.
So why is there such a sustained attack on the welfare system. Well, I guess it's a handy scapegoat. The welfare system is a necessary and humane response. A necessary drain on pockets. It's something that we all should learn to live with and come to value lest we have a need of it too. The answer lies in how it's managed. Governments who adopt a slash and burn approach, or who take a heavy hand to such, simply cause as many problems as they solve, even worse ones. Personally, I'd rather err towards a government that's heart isn't connected to its head than a government that's head isn't connected to its heart. Better a little left than a little right, perhaps. The ideal? Taking the best from both the left and the right until you have a healthy balance. While people continue to swing strongly to the left or strongly to the right, we'll never actually get things right. And many don't believe that they have swung. Half the problem.
A little sympathy is a fine thing too. Many of those who are on a benefit don't have the joy that comes from owning their own home, don't have a car, don't get a proper holiday, or any holiday, are often sick via worry and stress, are in debt, have little if any money in their bank account, and wouldn't be able to get a job if they tried due to high unemployment, age, constant health issues and the various kinds of discrimination that goes on, hence why some can be out of work for years and why they're the last ones that folk should condemn.  
Let's look at this a little further. I've often heard folk saying that there's work out there for those who really want to work, implying that many who are unemployed don't want to work and would rather sit on a benefit. Such an attitude effectively taints all who are out of work. It would do well for such critics to ponder on the following:
There may be a number of job vacancies — and countrywide, there could even be quite a lot, at any given time — but when one breaks those vacancies down into towns and cities and into what is suitable for any one individual, it's quite another story.
Let's take a middle-aged man who is unskilled and out of work, and then peruse the vacancies in his local newspaper — that is, the town or city in which he lives. What do we see (ignoring the political correctness nonsense, and being practical and fair)?
Jobs that are only suitable for women; jobs that only women would want to do; jobs that most employers would only hire a woman to do.
Jobs that require someone who has a trade — builder, plumber, etc.
Jobs that require someone who has professional training — doctor, scientist, etc.
Jobs that require proven managerial skills, or experience in a certain field, (there and then) — paramedic, physiotherapist, fireman, etc.
Jobs that  would somehow cut across someone's religious beliefs or ethics.
Jobs that are too far away to be viable or practical.
Jobs that not all can cope with -- high-rise window cleaning, mining, etc.
Plus, the middle-aged man that I've used as an example, might also have certain physical, emotional, or medical conditions that restrict his abilities (who wants a lame duck, it seems), and he may even have past convictions — and, sadly so, certain disfigurements or off-putting things that see most employers backing away from.
Don't forget too, that there's no doubt the bias of certain individuals who're hiring staff. Maybe they're racist, anti someone's religion.
And no doubt more things could be mentioned.
In summary, the amount of vacancies that he could sensibly apply for at any given time might be very few in the scheme of things, and how many are waiting in the very same queue wanting the very same job?
And while we're on the subject, here's another thing that's worth thinking about:
In times of high unemployment and the problems that result from such, why do those men and women who don't need to work continue to do so, thus adding to the problem in the sense that they are unnecessarily filling jobs that others who're out of work could do with? Perhaps those who don't need to work do so because they are bored at home, like the job they've got, enjoy the social contact, want another overseas holiday, or simply remain working because it makes them feel useful, though there are lots of other ways in which folk can make themselves useful. However, whatever the case may be, their absence from the workforce would certainly make a big difference because there is a lot of them out there. Sometimes in life, for the good of others, or society in general, we should be prepared to make certain sacrifices. Isn't that what love for our fellowman is all about? Better that than those with young families having to go on the dole (the unemployment benefit). Better that than having out-of-work young folk getting into trouble due to too much time on their hands, frustration or disillusionment.
Yes, so let's be a little more thoughtful when it comes to those who are unemployed, and more so during those harder times. 
When one is speaking about those who're on a benefit, or when one is mentioning the woes of those who're on a benefit, those who're condemning them often say things like this:
1) "We worked hard for what we've got."
Well, that may be so, but they're still blessed in the sense that they have much to be grateful for given that many others aren't as fortunate as they. Best they enjoy the ninety five percent that they have than waste their time getting ulcers over that five percent they think someone is draining from them. Compared to others, many are living like kings yet complaining as if they're paupers. Some people just don't know how well off they are.
2) "Their problems are of their own making."
Oh? I find it quite ironic that in this "Don't judge me!" age these people are doing just that. And who are they to judge. Some also point to certain things that someone on a benefit might have, and say, "Boy, they're doing alright on a benefit."  But how did they acquire that car or whatever it might be?
Was such gifted?
Did family or church members chip in?
Did they win such in a competition?
Was something a birthday present or a Christmas gift?
Did someone die and leave it to them? And so on.
It's a bit much when someone who's on a benefit is made to feel guilty because they're enjoying an ice-cream.
Might someone have shouted them that meal at a restaurant?
And what about that expensive looking European car they're driving, or that's parked up their drive?
Are they minding it for someone who said they could use it?
Did they somehow get it real cheap? Such things do happen, you know. And they hoping that nothing will go wrong with it. And don't forget that some things look better than they are.
Or once again, was it given to them? Should they not take it and use it because of what other people might think? Nor eat that ice-cream in public too? Come on you guys.
Dwell on this for a moment:
Jim (not his real name) was on a welfare benefit. He, his wife and children struggling to get by. One weekend a lady from a certain organisation called on them with a much appreciated food parcel. At the time she called, Jim was sitting on a borrowed and rather attractive modern motorbike with one of his children on the back, and about to drive off.
Jim felt very embarrassed because here he was sitting on that rather flash motorbike when supposedly struggling to make ends meet.
The lady got out of her car (in Jim’s drive) and passed by Jim on her way to the back door of Jim’s rented home.
Jim couldn’t get away fast enough, so he gingerly started making his way past the lady’s car with little room on either side of the bike, and wing mirrors not helping.
Just as he was doing so, the lady came back and wasn’t impressed and said rather crossly (and not very nicely), “You breaka my car and I breaka your face.”
Nervous Jim winced facially and said nothing given his even further embarrassment and inner struggle to express why he was acting so. Thus nothing got said. So off the lady drove with a sad impression of Jim not realising the truth of the matter, and she in too much of a disgusted state of mind to hang about for an explanation anyway.
Jim would’ve loved the opportunity to explain, but to a less aggressive and more receptive listener who would have made it easier for him to do so.
So there he is today, years afterward, still feeling badly about it, and another food parcel never came their way. I wonder why?
There are those who won't help certain parents who're on a benefit because they feel that those parents shouldn't be on a benefit. One downside of this is, that the children of those parents suffer as a result. Why penalise innocent children? It's not their fault. Thus, it's better to help those parents even if they shouldn't be on a benefit than to see those children suffering more so. Why effectively help a bad situation get worse?
3) "If I can do it, so can they."
Such a statement is often far from the truth and very cruel, and is sometimes even stated by those who once were on a benefit themselves but have since lost touch, or who've succumbed to the erroneous "You can do whatever you set your mind to" mantra propagated by the positive thinking brigade. There's a big difference between thinking positively and the 'positive thinking' gospel that's doing the rounds today (and raking in good money, I might add). A gospel that has serious flaws.
There are those on a benefit who may be deemed by some as able to enter the workforce, but who, due to certain issues they have, just don't cope out there. There's a big difference between those who're outright bludgers and those who are struggling to cope. And let me add, that just because the latter may seem to be having a great time on a benefit, it doesn't mean that they actually are. Don't we sometimes see cancer victims smiling and laughing? Aren't those on a benefit allowed to have some fun, some pleasures in life too? Do we doubt their illness or condition? No, such is simply a perpetrated myth thats validity only applies to the outright bludger and that's so often is used in a universal way as if all who're on a benefit are having a great time. It's hardly fun being on a benefit. Who would enjoy the stigma? Who would enjoy having to check in and out, getting asked this or that, being told to do this or that, having no say, the insecurity, and so on?
And how many are actually reaching out from their ivory towers (or better paddocks) and helping these folk so that they don't become a burden on a burdened system? If we're not prepared to help someone who's broken down on the road of life, we can't complain if they're slowing down the traffic and holding us up. Yes, it's so easy for folk to comment when they're on the other side of the fence.
People on a benefit may well appear to be getting by in the sense that they're paying their bills (rent, etc), but the truth of the matter often is, that in order to pay those bills, they and their family are going without decent food, medication, are missing meals, not going to the doctor when they need to, not managing to keep their needed car warrantable or its oil changed, are making do with cast offs and well used clothing, are going without adequate heating, and as a result, via lack of money, not attending to things that need attention (including their health), and which in time will therefore create bigger problems and more expense, and effectively create greater dependency on others and the State. Thus, if the taxpayer doesn't get hit one way, they get hit another. People in such a vulnerable situation only need one major expense to befall them and they're in dire straits.
Those who make the three statements I mentioned earlier remind me of those who think that prisons are too comfortable, and therefore, want them made less so. I wonder how they would feel if they ended up in one. Just being in prison is misery enough. Some seem to have a very uninformed idea of just how miserable being in prison is. Personally, I'd rather talk rehabilitation than dungeons. Even if prisoners had a TV it would hardly compensate for their loss of freedom and all that goes on in prisons (violence, sex attacks, threats, intimidation, etc). And bear in mind that if prison conditions are made worse, such will also affect the innocent person who is wrongly accused and sent to prison — and there are many of them, even on death row. And that person may well end up being you one day!  No, knee-jerk legislation is folly and all to common.
Such thinking also reminds me of those who clamour for the death penalty. I don't like to say it, but if you really want a perpetrator to suffer, leave them in prison for the rest of their life. Executing them hardly punishes them, as once they're dead, that's it!  No more suffering. Thus, you've effectively defeated the whole purpose of making them pay. Some aren't phased by the thought of departing this world. It may even be what they want at the end of the day. But years and years cooped up in a cell is hell. Most people when they've suffered the loss of a loved one due to some perpetrator don't think or react rationally or objectively. While such is very understandable, it's far from sensible.
Anyway, getting back to those who don't cope out there:
When such people are forced up against the wall by being pushed back out into the workforce, or by having their benefit cut or removed, they may simply turn to crime (or further crime), or midst their inability to cope, commit suicide, or take their distress and frustration out on society, and somewhat understandably, one might argue. Hence some of the mass shootings we see, not that I'm condoning such. When will we learn this? Many of those who're on a benefit have complexities within their situation, and complexities that stem from their unfortunate background, and those complexities are only aggravated by harsher measures and insensitive attitudes. Those who stand and judge often have no idea of what's really going on in that person's life. And remember that when a person on a benefit is threatened, so too is their family, so let's spare a little thought for the wider picture.
As a kid, I remember those adults who complained about council workers who seemingly stood around all day leaning on their shovels. "What a waste of taxpayers money!" they cried.  Well, the way I see it is, at least they were off the streets and their family being taken care of. Things are invariably better that way.  It's better to be too soft than too harsh, it's better to be generous rather than miserly. Answers don't always lie in an accountant's notebook. Hence why I repeat that an accountant type approach can actually worsen things. We need to consider what the cost to society is when people are forced up against the wall. It may be greater than paying benefits to those we consider bludgers, and more disastrous to society.
However, aren't their checks and balances? If there were, surely we wouldn't have quite the problem we do. How many people who abuse their government rented houses by knocking them around are being held accountable for such? If they're not being held accountable, why complain about such housing draining taxpayers money? Deal with the problem makers! Don't slash and burn the system, and don't get stuck into the ones who genuinely aren't able to cope, and who need support. Don't go by appearances. In other words, go after the real bludger.
And by the way, where is the support for those who're struggling? The truth is that there is not the degree of support out there that is needed, so forcing those back into work who don't cope out there simply shoots the problem off in another direction, and onto others out there who may receive the brunt of it in any which a way. Some folk only cope because they're on a benefit. And let me add too, that doctors don't always fully comprehend or pick up on what's going on within someone (emotionally or physically), hence why some folk may not get a doctors approval to remain off work when they should remain off work. Many doctors no doubt have the same welfare bashing attitude. Thus, some people who're already on a benefit and are struggling, are best just left alone lest greater problems ensue, and more so if they're not harming anyone and not committing crime. Yes, better some wastage than the trouble that may come through being tight-fisted fiscally. The tighter the rope, the greater the tension. And snap?
Some of these people (maybe many) could be placed in jobs where there’s a sympathetic employer. The arrangement being, that any day or week that they felt unable to cope (for whatever reason), the government would pick up the tab, and the days that they were managing and were working, the employer paying them. If they only worked half a day, say, then the government and employer would go halves.
This way would really be better than just placing them on a benefit and leaving them to it.
The jobs given to these people would need to be flexible ones to allow for the possible coming and going (those days they could cope and those days they felt unable to cope). Meantime, there being a support base for them where they could be monitored and helped.
For those who simply don’t cope out there (they not able to handle stress, or prone to serious depression and/or breakdowns), courses and training should be continuously available without any pressure to attend such, but rather, they gently encouraged and coaxed via certain incentives. And those courses could include self-esteem and coping methods (including ongoing support) where they might find their own legs.
Is the welfare system a sustainable system? Of course it is, but only where there's the will. And morally, their should always be the will, there should always be a way. Most people are too busy looking down the wrong end of the telescope, too busy picking up on that unfair and undue anti-beneficiary sentiment.
Far too often, all we hear about is the so-called bludgers. It's time that myth was separated from fact. Finally, there's no shame in being on welfare, unless one is a bludger, and hey, who knows all the facts? So let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

4.  "Shouldn't Have Kids Unless You Can Afford Them," They Say

Many people set out believing that they can afford children but misfortune visits them after they’ve gone ahead.
Many people set out believing that they can afford children but due to an economic downturn struggle to maintain them, so to speak.
Many who’ve had children experience a marital break-up and with costs no longer shared encounter greater financial difficulty from which both they and their children suffer.
In essence, every married couple has the right to have children whether they be poor or rich given that the primary purpose of the marital union is to procreate and the couple thus see their image (that fusion), reproduced in their offspring, though whether to have children or not should be a personal decision. But having said that, no couple who would like to have children should be left with the permanent regret of not having had them because of that “Shouldn’t have children unless you can afford them” mentality.
Because children are a necessity economically, they need to be had even if folk can’t really afford them (though within reason, of course), otherwise such can prove injurious to one’s country which it has already to a number of countries.
What also needs to be born in mind is that couples need to have more than just two children, otherwise the population simply remains static, and this, only if those two children remain alive. Therefore, even two children per couple aren’t sufficient to rectify the situation, and this made worse given that not all couples are able to have children and that some folk remain single all their life.
With the last two points in mind (and for one thing), society therefore needs to create affordable housing (for rent or purchase), for those who’re less well-off.
And by the way: This planet is not overpopulated but simply parts or pockets of it. If it weren’t for animal farming, (one reason for the Amazon jungle being decimated), millions and millions of more people could be fed.
I personally find it funny how folk enjoy others' children, and their skills or talents which they oft benefit from, and even marry them, but condemn those who had them in the sense of so many, be that five or six, say. It's a bit like condemning folk for poaching but taking and eating what they poached.

5.  Regarding Children Who Remain At Home

I’ve always found it hard to understand why certain folk say: “At his (or her) age he (or she) shouldn’t be living at home.”
Seems some parents can’t kick their children out of home soon enough. If that’s the case, why did they have them? Such might be understandable if their child is a serious disruption to the home. But otherwise, dwell on the following:
1) If a child isn’t married (or may’ve been married but their marriage is over), and gets on well with his or her parents, why shouldn’t he or she remain at home (or return home), if such is fine with their parents?
That son or daughter may prove to be a blessing, especially where their parents are in their later years. Where their parents are in fact in their later years, it’s surely best that they enjoy their parents company as much as possible before they pass away. Once gone they’re gone for good.
2) When children go flatting (possibly leaving their parents with two or three empty bedrooms), they unnecessarily take up rental accommodation that may be in short supply and sorely needed. And thus unscrupulous landlords hiking rents which penalises those genuine folk who aren’t too flash financially, and really in need of cheaper accommodation.
3) So many of these children who are flatting are trashing their rental accommodation, making nuisances of themselves via their loud music and unrestrained parties, bedding the opposite sex at their convenience (mixed flatting making things worse), and are simply drifting from drug haze to drug haze.
4) When young folk go flatting they’re removed from the better influences of home (any bad influences aside), parental oversight and direction, and even a more wholesome family circle-cum-friends and relations.
5) And given the times we live in, surely it’s better that such young folk remain at home where resources can be pooled and they save their pennies for a brighter future.

6.  A Word Of Caution

One ill effect of governmental welfare programmes (as opposed to Christian charity) is that they often foster political demagoguery by pandering to the voters who're recipients of social welfare.
Political demagoguery benefits the selfish interests of the demagogues who, by presenting themselves as advocates of state welfare programmes, reap political gain since those who're dependant on governmental handouts will vote for them in order to keep the handouts coming.
It needs to be remembered that what the government hands out, it takes via means of compulsory taxation (given that government has no funds except those taken via such).

Drawn from the book: How Christianity Changed The World by Alvin Schmidt