去嘅原因，係因為我哋覺得唔可以再有另一個「黃葵香」，唔可以再有有鬥心脫離綜援嘅人，被政府逼死。
佢被逼死嘅原因，係因為社署喺社會壓力下，要啲某時段收入超標嘅人嘔番啲攞咗嘅綜援津貼出嚟。
咁我哋嘅建議係每個港人可以喺18至65歲嗰47年間，攞某期數限嘅綜援津貼，例如可總共攞260個禮拜。
點解？依家嘅制度，理論上可無止境咁攞，令社會覺得會有綜援戶抱住「唔攞就嘥」嘅心態，令自己墮入綜援制度，安全網變蜘蛛網。亦因社會有咁嘅感覺，逼到政府要攞綜援嘅人面對非常繁複、官僚式嘅高門檻先攞得綜援。
設期數降門檻
亦因為咁，好似黃葵香呢啲想脫離綜援嘅人，雖然有鬥心，但喺勞動人口嘅邊緣，工作穩定性好低，一旦放棄綜援，好驚上唔番車，唔敢同社署講佢有一份可能好快又冇嘅工。悲劇結果係一旦被揭，就會被逼死。
不過如果設期數限制（期數當然可再傾），社會就會覺得綜援戶攞嘅津貼，對於佢哋個人嚟講係有限資源，攞一期就少一期，自然會珍惜。
到時候，政府可大幅簡化攞綜援嘅程序同降低門檻，令自覺有需要嘅人得到幫忙，呢期冇需要就唔攞，黃葵香亦唔會被政府逼死。
咁在場嘅其他綜援既得利益集團代表點睇？佢哋只係不斷話社會嘅歧視，係因政府播過兩段宣傳片，而解決歧視嘅方法，就係政府再拍多段「攞綜援ok」片。
冇錯，我都係諗what the fuck。
你，究竟係想求其交差同人講你做咗嘢？定真係想幫綜援戶？
--------------------------------
The mild as crap 政府宣傳片
The mild as crap 政府宣傳片
柏文兄:
ReplyDelete初次留言，客隨主便。
「每個港人可以喺18至65歲嗰47年間，攞某期數限嘅綜援津貼，例如可總共攞260個禮拜。」
依個建議的確係可以解決到你講果個問題，但係又可能會製造另一個問題，就係有d人會諗方法係65歲之前，如何可以攞足果260個禮拜...因為「對於佢哋個人嚟講係有限資源，攞一期就少一期」，而如果一期都唔攞...可以講係清高，亦都可以解係「笨」...
肥仔：
ReplyDelete我贊成，不過為免唔攞嘅人嘈，最好65歲後有d 回贈！^^
Well... I wanted to originally say 18 - 70...
ReplyDeleteSo if you claimed no payment, you can simply get 5 years of money at 65. Which I think can work.
But if I say 18 - 70, those flaming dummies will put all the focus on 'wah! forcing kung kung poh poh to work!'
So knowing that clever folks like you two will ask me that question, I rather admit here that the original plan was to be 18 - 70, than stretch my battlefield + lose focus with my 500 word column.
People are selfish! Is that a golden rule?
ReplyDeleteReading your notes and comments, I just want to say ....errrrr, but eventually I feel speechless ... just to save my 2 cents!