Effects Of Australia's Welfare System

Australia like many 1st world countries is experiencing an ageing workforce. Couples are having fewer children and later in their life, to assist couples the government has introduced a Baby Bonus payment, increase Child Care payments and has an immigration policy targeted to supplement the declining birth rate.

Whilst these percentages had changed significantly it was also found that the types of people who were living under the poverty line were still the same. In this report it was found that 75 percent of those living below the poverty line were not in the workforce, and that the aged made up 41 per cent of all Australians that were living in poverty. (Williams, Lawrey 2000) Therefore it is clear that although the poverty line had risen significantly from 1975 to 1987, there has not been an improvement in the percentage of Australians living under the poverty line, but instead this percentage has increased.

The social welfare in the UK is very different in practice for example benefits and services are delivered at minimum level as the coverage it widespread and can be too costly or even extensive. The social protection in which the welfare state provided is irregular and unpredictable and the services are rationed very tightly. As the services have been contracted out to self-reliant providers the control over the quality and reliability of social protection had been even more difficult to maintain. (Spicker2014)

The Commonwealth of Australia is both a representative democracy and a constitutional monarchy with Queen Elizabeth II as Australia 's head of state. (How government works, 2016). Since the 1990s globalization has gained widespread currency in Australia on a social, economic, political and cultural level. (Holmes, 2012, p. 340) Laws and politics have an influence on Australia’s economic system, which is capitalism and socialism. (Political Economy, n.d.) Analysis of political and economic approaches by government can add insight into the flow on effects on a community and its individual.

In the 21st century the unemployed or sole parent households become reliant on income support and non wage benefits L. Kirkwood et al: 2006). In 2002, 8.6 per cent of GDP was spent on social assistance benefits in cash to Australian residents L. Kirkwood et al: 2006). Total welfare expenditure in 2005-06 was $90.2 billion, of which $61.3 billion (68%) was cash benefits and $28.9 billion (32%) benefits-in-kind (welfare services). Spending on welfare services in 2005-06 was 3.0% of GDP or $1,404 per person (Welfare, 2011).

Changes within the welfare system as a result of policy shifts and by new thinking, more generally in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), have had many methods, but the one that seemed most important, was that welfare recipients were required to do much more to justify their income support payments than before. The foundation of this new idea is that income support programs should allow individuals to maximise their participation in work. Due to the general shift in welfare administration, the number of activity test requirements an individual in Australia must meet in order to receive unemployment benefits, has expanded significantly since the early 1990s. This complex, overly bureaucratic process means that disadvantaged individuals cannot access the income support payments they require.

There remains a remnant of citizens who honestly cannot do without the welfare system and who abide by the regulation of the welfare system, however, the system unintentionally invites scam artists. The ways of abusing the welfare system continuos to grow. Here are just a few of the examples. Citizens are staying single parents in order to receive aid. Parents view having more children as a gateway to receiving more money from the system. Recipients refuse to search for jobs and report employment in order to continue receiving assistance. People seem to easily make false claims, requesting assistance when they do not need it. Although, there is a set time period for receiving funds many citizens become comfortable and lazy during assistance. The whole purpose of the system is to get citizens through rough economical problems and back to a independent lifestyle without government aid. However, the systems seems to encourage complacency in society and provide fraud play in

The welfare systems are based on the principle of public responsibility on equitable wealth distribution and equality of opportunities to citizens who are unable to afford minimal levels of quality and good life, through provision of universal education programs, health care and subsidised housing. In most of the states, welfare systems are not used in the right manner they are intended to. Although the systems are meant to reduce the poverty level and at least assists individuals to get decent jobs, many recipients develops news ways every year to prolong their dependency in the system. Statistics show that women easily abuse the welfare system by simply having more children each year since this means that more money will come in their mails. Most of the recipients on welfare are able to work

One of the most important things in our lives today is Canada’s welfare state, as it transformed Canada’s economy after the economy’s downturn from the Great Depression. The democratic system was formed to maintain prosperity, solidity and security in our everyday lives. One of the key pillars of the nation’s welfare state is employment insurance (EI). Through this analysis of Canada’s employment insurance, I will elucidate why I believe that this program should continue, but with refinements, as it has benefited a large portion of unemployed Canadians over the years and should continue doing so to fulfill the countries goals of the welfare state.

In conclusion the Welfare State was created on the principle that the state accepted a responsibility to protect and promote the welfare of all citizens. It must be noted that the system was designed to provide a national minimum, not reduce inequalities. I have looked in detail at all aspects to combat the “five giants “and the popular support when the Beveridge report was introduced. I have also looked at flaws in the system, however the cornerstone of the Beveridgian welfare system, was left almost untouched until the 1980’s.

In this essay I will analyse the issue of social welfare, referencing Weber’s Protestant Work Ethic and Foucault’s analysis of power structures and the welfare state. The support systems in place to ensure that the poorest and most vulnerable members of society are able to survive have been the subject of increasing scrutinisation and hostility as we have entered the 21st Century. This hostility to social welfare can be seen in the intense backlash against the Affordable Care Act in America, and the current ethos permeating Australian culture that it is better to work in demeaning or unsafe conditions that to be an unproductive member of society.

This paper focuses on aging in Australia, the different policies and services for the aging population, and provides some examples about what it would be like to age in Australia. First, it is important to understand the age care policy in Australia. There are four different components to this policy: the old-aged pension system, pursuit of the aging-in-place policy, self-funded services and supports, and residential and frail aged care. The aged care policy in Australia is “built on the premise of independence and individualization and assumes that older people will remain in the community for as long as they are able to” (Gray & Heinsch, 2009, p. 108). In order to

United States Government Welfare began in the 1930’s during the Great Depression. Franklin D. Roosevelt thought of this system as an aid for low-income families whose men were off to war, or injured while at war. The welfare system proved to be beneficial early on by giving families temporary aid, just enough to help them accommodate their family’s needs. Fast forward almost 90 years, and it has become apparent that this one once helpful system, has become flawed. Welfare itself and the ideologies it stands on, contains decent fundamentals; furthermore, this system of aid needs only to be reformed to better meet the needs of today’s society.

The aim of this essay is to discuss and compare the British Welfare system with Germany and Sweden’s welfare systems. A welfare system is the structure of welfare provisions and services that provide a specific social need, but it is not only provided or organised solely by the government (Blakemore, 2001). It is a view that is rooted in individual exchanges between five organisations (State/Government, Market/Private Sector, Family/Kin networks, Local Communities and Civil Society). It reflects the history and cultures of different countries around the world (Haralambos, 2012). It is these providers that assume principal

This essay will consider whether the welfare state has eliminated poverty. It will examine what poverty is and how the definition varies from societies. The essay will look at the aims of the welfare state from conception and how it has changed to present times. The welfare state being analysed is the welfare state in the United Kingdom. It will discuss the nature of the social democratic welfare state and liberal criticisms of the problems this type of state brings. The recent changes to the welfare state will be reviewed and what the consequences of the changes may be. It will then look at recent statistics to determine whether the welfare state has eradicated poverty.