Let me proceed cautiously. I don’t want to step on any toes but I think there’s an elephant in the room. I know it’s not politically correct to raise taboo topics publicly but…here goes. Has the helping hand pendulum swung too far? Do government support programs really get people back on their feet?
Now before you beat me up for having the audacity to raise these questions, let’s look at this dispassionately. I truly believe a civilised society should support those who are less fortunate. We have a fundamental responsibility to provide a safety net for those who need assistance. The government has a moral obligation to help the neediest members of society.
However, an increasing number of Australians rely on government assistance and some believe that passive welfare is cruel. Over 42% of families receive more from the federal Government than they pay in income tax. It’s also argued that welfare saps the will to save.
Those who do not receive welfare are often criticised for being well off. Yet the “well off” pay the taxes that are re-directed by the government to pay the benefits to those in need. This paradox is satirically explained in a modernized version of Aesop’s classic tale of The Ant and The Grasshopper.
Personally, I have always subscribed to the Chinese proverb: Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime. That’s why Gateway is supporting the self help efforts of the peasant farmers in Cambodia to break the cycle of poverty through micro-financing. The Cambodians do not want to be dependent on foreign aid but seek self-sufficiency.
Credit unions around the world help people get ahead and maintain their independence by encouraging old fashion habits of thrift. Without savings people can easily fall into the trap of using payday lenders and this can trigger a debt spiral. I believe that self-help is better than institutional help. I’ll have more to say about micro-financing next week.
Regards
Paul J. Thomas
Podcast is available here 
Robert Vuong Says:Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Hi Paul, would this reduce the number of people on welfare? I always wonder.... For a family, there are times where if one person works while the spouse is unemployed, the income that the working person brings in is not much different to two on welfare. Hence, the working person might as well stay at home on welfare. If each individual is assessed independently regardless if they are single or a couple, wouldn't this then encourage the working person to stay in the work force.
Michael Fraccaro Says:Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Paul, another well thought through blog. For me the essence of your thoughts focus around 3 key dimensions: (1) social responsibility and the role governments play to support the needy...I think they must always be there to provide as you say a safety net (for a defined period of time) (2) the provision of a basic fundamental...education and (3) an unquantifiable dimension which no public program or government support can provide - drive and tenacity to better oneself. Australia is full of heroic stories of immigrants arriving with just a suitcase and turning an opportunity, vision, dream into sustainable wealth and success. Similarly we see stories of individuals from underprivelaged background/environments, perhaps with some form of disability, pushing the boundaries...because of an innate sense of drive and self-worth. The human dimension is so powerful...and yet so understated. Thanks for the morning stimulus. Best regards, Michael