Sunday 9 July 2023


09 July 2023

Gajalakshmi Paramasivam




Welfare payments automatically generate their ‘other side’. If the payment is a cost, the receipt is an income. If the payment is an asset, the receipt is a liability. The 2015 government seems to have treated it as an asset which became liability in the books of the recipients. The way this liability is settled, varies as per our respective cultures.


As per my culture, a senior within an independent structure has the duty to take care of the junior’s needs. In turn the junior has the responsibility to respect the senior. This then settles the debt at that level. In the case of welfare recipients, if  they fail to respect the providers that the government represents,  then the debt becomes a sin. A sin in this instance is negative Energy against those who work and pay taxes. Taken as a whole, the motivation to work, is continuously offset by the sin of welfare recipients.


It is therefore necessary for the government to ensure that the liability is less in value than the asset generated by  the providers of  welfare funds.  Hence the move to recognise this is positive and healthy.


The alleged victims of the Robodebt scheme stand to lose most, if they knowingly or otherwise, contribute to developing this excessive liability, by finding fault with a particular government. Such an approach would lead to pampering the welfare recipients. This in turn promotes the subjective system of autocracy and weakens our investment in the objective system needed to develop democracy.


Those who take ‘free’ money eventually lose intelligence to attract work opportunities.  Excessive punishment where disciplinary action would be sufficient, would contribute to separatism.

No comments:

Post a Comment