WELFARE - NON-REPAYABLE AND REPAYABLE

Article by Tony Cook (New Zealand)

The welfare portfolio for countries that provide it, is an ongoing headache for governments due mainly to its immense financial demands.

Generally, I am in agreement that society certainly has a humane duty to provide a safety net for those that need it, or, who are indeed entitled to it as of right, by some predetermined circumstance. However, I also see the welfare need as being of two very different types of entitlement.

The first is what we’re all used to. The non-repayable welfare benefit, or entitlement. No further explanation is necessary here.

The second type of requirement is the basis of this new suggested approach, and I refer to what I call the repayable welfare benefit, or entitlement.

To explain this more clearly, let’s firstly take an example of say an employee who is made redundant. The criterion of the circumstance is the determining factor. I believe most would agree that redundancy is usually beyond an employee’s control. All other things being equal, this would fairly indicate society’s moral obligation to provide an unemployment benefit on a non-repayable basis.

On the other hand, let’s take another loss of job example where the employee has been caught stealing company stock and is dismissed as a result. Normally such a person would apply for the unemployment benefit (assuming he needs it), and regardless of the fact that he has been the architect of his own circumstances, society gives him his non-repayable benefit with no strings attached. He may be prosecuted for stealing and pay the price, but why should society be expected to pay a price as well, per the non-repayable benefit?

Certainly, I’m quite comfortable with the actual payment of the benefit to this dishonest employee. It could be badly needed by a spouse and/or family. But from there on I would argue that I don’t see society as being morally responsible for this employee’s dishonest actions. For that reason, I would further argue, whilst society should tide this person over until his re-employment, society should not be expected to pick up the tab. Instead, once re-employment has been achieved, this person should be responsible for repaying society the total benefits he has received, (as for a temporary loan advance), plus a current average rate of interest.

Now I could go on quoting examples, but I’m sure it’s not really necessary. The essential principle is simply: where a person knowingly and substantially causes the circumstances which necessitate the need for a benefit or entitlement, then it should be provided, but only on a repayable basis.

Apparently, there are enormous numbers of such circumstances occurring all the time. Employees leaving their jobs of their own volition, or, being dismissed for poor performance, lateness, and so on. Sickness benefits paid to people who make no attempt to attend to their health properly. Domestic purpose benefits paid to people who quite irresponsibly caused their circumstances in the first place, and so on. Society has a moral obligation to assist all these people, but not, in my opinion, to foot the bill as well. Assist yes, pay for, no.

To this end the introduction of repayable benefits, and/or entitlements should be appropriately investigated, legislated for and implemented as soon as possible.

The savings would be considerable and I’ve little doubt would greatly assist the welfare funding situation significantly.

Other Articles Available: “Televoting - The Final Frontier”

“Penal Confinement - A solitary Solution”

“Debit Tax – Key to Fiscal Prosperity”