Social grants now support 15.2m

Alestorm said:
Currently most of those people desperately need the grants, but they should really get jobs.. what can you do about it?
Click to expand...
Tell them to stop breeding. You shouldn't be having kids that you can't afford to raise.
 
Deezil said:
Amen
Click to expand...

This really isn't an argument to me, nobody wants to be living on the kind of grants you get in SA instead of a real income, and nobody wants to pay for grants. That's the end of that story.

The problem is having millions living on no income and how do you fix it? Grants are the most direct way, jobs for all of them just don't exist. Is there a better solution? At the least make the able bodied ones have to have finished their 10 hours of social work/cleaning the streets/working in orphanages etc before they get the grant.

You need more than just "I don't like the grant system"/"those lazy bastards are living off my tax money".
 
Mike Hoxbig said:
Tell them to stop breeding. You shouldn't be having kids that you can't afford to raise.
Click to expand...

But breeding is another R250 grant you idiot. Eish..

Ye they should stop breeding, but unless they're going to stop altogether (and they're not even going to slow down unless they become middle class) this won't solve the problem. Got anything better?
 
Alestorm said:
But breeding is another R250 grant you idiot. Eish..

Ye they should stop breeding, but unless they're going to stop altogether (and they're not even going to slow down unless they become middle class) this won't solve the problem. Got anything better?
Click to expand...
I have no idea. It's a double edged sword - on the one hand we need to reduce population growth before the entire system collapses, but on the other hand the ANC relies on it for votes.
 
Alestorm said:
Well, it should definitely be the aim of government to get more people into work and contributing tax, but what do you do with these 15 million people right now? Say that a welfare state is bad and take the money from them? You'll get a good few million basically dying of hunger and the rest in even more extreme poverty.

I think the least you can do is make them work for it in whatever meaningful way, except the truly disabled and pensioners. What to put them to work on that doesn't cost more money to create the jobs though?
Click to expand...

Not true at all, they will find ways to get work, currently they are multiplying because they get a grant per child.
In fact, if you remove the welfare state, the unions and CCMA I bet our unemployment will be over within 4 years time.

Those 15 million people will find ways to plant their own food and be productive, you will be surprised how fast people tend to innovate.

The aim of government should not be to provide people with work that is moving backwards, go and read up on how the New Deal packages in America prolonged the great depression.

The aim of government should be to create the opportunity for work. Currently with all the labour legislation small business incentives are being killed, that is our biggest problem. Rather tax the people less and regulate them less and you will find that government absorbs a lot of the unemployment and the welfare dependants.
 
Last edited:
Nicodeamus said:
Not true at all, they will find ways to get work, currently they are multiplying because they get a grant per child.
In fact, if you remove the welfare state, the unions and CCMA I bet our unemployment will be over within 4 years time.

Those 15 million people will find ways to plant their own food and be productive, you will be surprised how fast people tend to innovate.

The aim of government should not be to provide people with work that is moving backwards, go and read up on how the New Deal packages in America prolonged the great depression.

The aim of government should be to create the opportunity for work. Currently with all the labour legislation small business incentives are being killed, that is our biggest problem. Rather tax the people less and regulate them less and you will find that government absorbs a lot of the unemployment and the welfare dependants.
Click to expand...

I do also like this idea, but I wonder what would happen to many of the 15 million, they would not all find ways to sustain themselves. Another huge problem would be that most of them are uneducated and equipped with little to no useful skills. But still most likely preferable to a grant system on this scale. Too bad it's so politically unpalatable that it won't happen any time soon. Maybe if we can get it into Juju's head.. but he's heading in the opposite direction entirely. There should be a middle ground that doesn't make it sound like simply abandoning the very poor.. which we can aim for.

To clarify I don't think government should make the (permanent) jobs for them, but as you say create the opportunity for work.
 
You obviously have to roll back these handouts, but before you can do that we need a Margaret Thatcher to take on our unions.

If our unions are dealt with then labour becomes attractive, then roll back the handouts those people will now have jobs and they can up their net worth by attributing new skills in whatever field they go into.
 
Many of these people are loafers sure. But many of them are decent hard working people. Human beings. A 54 year single woman, without an ivy league education, working an 8-hour day of manual labour to put food on the table for her children as well as her dead sister's children. The social grants assist the lowest earners to afford to work for low wages to feed their children and the orphaned children of their siblings. Nothing more. Enough to survive to get to work another day, maybe without so much as a thanks or a smile. It is not ideal. These people never asked to be here. The funny thing is if we stopped these "grants" the economy would probably falter. These grants get spent, keeping the economy ticking, affording the lowest paid to afford to work. Can we afford not to?
 
Milano said:
Many of these people are loafers sure. But many of them are decent hard working people. Human beings. A 54 year single woman, without an ivy league education, working an 8-hour day of manual labour to put food on the table for her children as well as her dead sister's children. The social grants assist the lowest earners to afford to work for low wages to feed their children and the orphaned children of their siblings. Nothing more. Enough to survive to get to work another day, maybe without so much as a thanks or a smile. It is not ideal. These people never asked to be here. The funny thing is if we stopped these "grants" the economy would probably falter. These grants get spent, keeping the economy ticking, affording the lowest paid to afford to work. Can we afford not to?
Click to expand...

Not entirely true, these grants get spend almost immediately, basically all that does is transfer the wealth from the poor to the rich. If I give you something for free you don't take care of it as well as when you would when you worked for it. Furthermore it destroys any entrepreneurial incentive in these communities. This can be confirmed if you note that South Africa is the most unequal society in the world.

I agree that you need to help these people and what better way than to help them help themselves. As I pointed out earlier the whole crux of our policy in this country is not aimed at uplifting the poor at all and these grants only try to address a symptom not a root cause.
 
The major issue here is that the government continually introduce more socialistic ideals and even laws, where there simply isn't enough in the fiscus to do so. Now I have my objections to socialism, however if it is introduced correctly, it can produce jobs. Unfortunately the government has proven its ineptitude in this department. More than just that, revoking grants in favour of employing those same people means that government find themselves competing against the private sector for a limited pool of money. That's not sustainable either.

The only solution to the employment simply wouldn't make most of you happy. It is to reduce tax on corporates, reduce grants, funnel more into entrepreneurship and education, and amend CSR laws to stipulate under what circumstances companies qualify for tax reductions to the extent I'm talking about. As it stands, the King code is all we have (which is great but not law for the most part). And there are very few sweeteners in place for the private sector to do so.

Bottom line is government need to reduce social grants, expand and maintain their public works adequately if they're not prepared to open it up to the private sector, and sweeten the deal for the private sector to expand their CSR programmes and in doing so, grow their business. Unfortunately we have one hand not knowing what the other is ever doing and that continues to hamper growth. Alternatively the government can remove itself somewhat by opening all services up to the private sector. What is lost in revenue is made up for with increased tax collections through new jobs created; it takes advantage of market efficiencies; it resolves the majority of employment issues; it's a flexible model etc etc etc.

Government is hindering the process. Every time they meddle, they're muddying the waters of an already inefficient system. That's why these revolts are inevitable and why the government machine continues to regulate itself into relevance...
 
But the major stumbling block in this plan is education. Without the skills, the private and public sector can create as many jobs as they like and the outcome will be a negative one.

We need huge investment in education in this country to even begin to resolve the employment issue.

Alas, the ANC prefer that not to happen, therefore every single South African will be hit hard to keep this country's head above water. The poor will feel it the worst. The ANC's core voter group...
 
Milano, it wouldn't hamper the economy as it is a transfer of wealth, not a creation of it. The economy doesn't care where your money is spent as it's not directional. Their grants spending does not stimulate the economy in any considerable way in any case.

But you do make good points about who many of the recipients are. My argument is that if food is the issue, then a company could easily handle this as a part of their CSR programme affording them a tax break, which in itself stimulates an economy far, far better than a transfer of wealth does...
 
I definitely need to start working hard to convince people to stop having a lot of kids if they can't afford to financially take care of them. Do you guys think if I give speeches at different churches every Sunday that after some time people will eventually listen? I was thinking of (in a very sensitive and respectable way) go to a church, ask permission from the priest beforehand and then stand in front of people and tell them about the dangers of having too many kids.

We can't just let this continue, us complaining though social networks and forums instead of taking action doesn't help.
 
Sly21C said:
I definitely need to start working hard to convince people to stop having a lot of kids if they can't afford to financially take care of them. Do you guys think if I give speeches at different churches every Sunday that after some time people will eventually listen? I was thinking of (in a very sensitive and respectable way) go to a church, ask permission from the priest beforehand and then stand in front of people and tell them about the dangers of having too many kids.

We can't just let this continue, us complaining though social networks and forums instead of taking action doesn't help.
Click to expand...
Every bit helps. The ratio of taxpayer to non-taxpayer is decreasing and eventually the system will collapse. People need to understand that if they don't have the financial means to raise children, not only will they be giving their children a lower quality of life than they had, but they're effectively making themselves poorer too.

I think the problem is that people are too stubborn to think two generations ahead - instead of making the sacrifice now to benefit future generations they'd rather make it somebody else's problem since they'll be dead.
 
Awesome idea sly. Just be cautious about whose toes you might step on in the process. ANCYL wouldn't want to hear you preaching the opposite of their ideals. Good luck...
 
There are a few misconceptions which are being promoted in this thread. The main misconception being promoted is that recipients of grants are all unemployed loafers. Not true. Now I realise that this is myBB so people are going to disagree over the colour of the sky. Many here are complaining that their tax money is supporting loafers. If the grant money ends up simply being transferred from the poor to the rich (as per Nicodeamus) then why are the rich complaining? Yet, if we indicate all sectors of the economy benefit then it is argued that the funds are non-directional. A substantial portion of these funds get spent on, for example, buying fruit and veg from the street vendor, so the vendor can earn a living. So the grants do get redisbursed within the economy. Many others within low income communities are benefiting, not just the individual recipient. Stop the grants, the street vendor stops making a living. Then there is labour. Many of these low-income workers can only survive with the grants supplementing their low incomes to create an almost liveable wage. Remove the grants and a large percentage of your low-income work force can no longer afford to survive and are therefore unable to provide basic labour to the economy.

If I give you something for free you don't take care of it as well as when you would when you worked for it. Furthermore it destroys any entrepreneurial incentive in these communities. This can be confirmed if you note that South Africa is the most unequal society in the world.
Click to expand...

If you are given a Ferrari you may take less care of it than if you earned it. Social grants are for things we associate with basic human rights like medical, educational, food, shelter. Well if you work a full time job and still can't afford to school your child then the assistance provided by a grant is helpful to pay for an education for your child. Entrepreneurial incentives? These people will never be entrepreneurs under any plan. They need social assistance for practical survival. Like when even the wealthy are complaining about toll roads, fuel prices, these people face the same challenges, only 100-fold, because it doesn't simply mean buying one less PS3 game for them.

SA is not a highly unequal society due to grants. It is easy to view the entire low-income sector of society as loafers, it is just not an accurate or fair portrayal. Yes, we will read about the loafer who collects grants for his dead brother but they don't publish stories about decent, hard working people struggling to survive, and in need of social assistance for practical real-world realities. .
 
Last edited:
Also, grants and social welfare assistance are not purely an "SA is going to the crapper" issue. Grants have always been around. When kids went to government schools before 1994 and parents paid R400 per year, those were subsidised ie. grants. And for single parents who paid R36 per year in school fees, those were grants too. And if you couldn't pay one cent and yet your child went to school, then those were grants too. Not just SA today. Not just SA pre-1994. In the US, the 39 million people who collect food stamps and social assistance. They are not there due to socialist policies or lack of 'entrepreneurial incentives'. We should consider looking at this in a non-aggressive, unbiased manner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X