However, as a taxpayer myself, I have no objection at all to subsidising people doing interesting things on the dole. I agree that intergenerational unemployment is a bad thing, and I agree that everyone who wants a job should be able to have one (but don’t feed the “there are plenty of jobs, there’s a skills shortage” rubbish – I don’t know what it’s like in the capital cities, but here in the bush there are bugger-all jobs).

If someone decides that they would prefer to stay at home and go into debt for a while rather than work as a call-centre slave or a McDonalds drone, I’m happy to support them.

I suspect it’s just terminology that bothers people who despise “dole bludgers”. If the dole regarded a short-term and extremely meagre arts grant (or physical fitness grant or a daydreaming grant or listening to Pink Floyd stoned grant) with a bit of paperwork we would be congratulating ourselves on our enlightened society.

Let’s avoid gratuitous insults, shall we?

Yep, we are rich – so we can afford to help people. People on very low incomes (dunno what the official poverty line is, but the dole would have to be below it) do it very tough.

There’s nothing inherently good about being in work – statistically it does have benefits for mental and physical health compared with not working, but that’s a product of a consumerist society not geared towards non-material happiness, IMHO.

I personally find stints on the dole to be difficult materially (I inevitably end up in deep debt) but spritually rewarding. Maybe you should try it some time.

We’re richer than we ever have been. A country full of adults should be *more* able to look after themselves.