DTF.com.au

Is there a case for compulsory financial management?

The government interferes in the lives of the tax paying general public in order to redistribute wealth. Yet those on benefits fall further and further into debt. Should the 'government' take complete control of those whose income is more than 50% benefit and impose a rigorous financial regime? Would this 'encourage' those who don't care whilst genuinely helping those who simply find budgeting a difficult 'science'?

Public Comments

1. There might be a case for this in a socialist or communist state. States like that have always collapsed historically. It wouldn't work in a true capitalist society. What we need to do is stop giving them free handouts and then they will learn real quick the importance of getting a job.
2. Taking complete control would not help them at all. However, I think for those on public assistance, their rent and utilities should be paid directly by the government and the amount deducted from their check. That way they can be sure they at least have shelter and heat.
3. Why do you cons always spew these claims without ever supporting it with facts! Or are you one of those cons who don't want to pay taxes but will expect the government to come to your rescue when you need them?
4. 0ne way would be for all to get basic provisions out of taxation. eg Light, Heat, Water. (It would need increased taxation but would evn out in lower 'benefits') Companies that encourgae unpayable debts probably deserve to lose out. It would make THEM more careful