What is not covered by last-resort financial assistance

I will not really dwell on some of the unfortunate results of living off last-resort financial assistance.  Let me quickly talk about the lack of ability to stay informed about the society you are presently in. In my case the money I receive is so small that to have a computer and communication system to stay informed (not to mention working) takes up a huge amount of capital. So much so, I find that significant others feel that the effort and money invested in doing this is extravagant and irrelevant.  this I find very disturbing when one thinks of being undefended in case of attack or being kept in isolation and alienation or even being exploited for work reasons and the joy of not paying for services rendered,

Splitting one’s welfare money and giving it to someone else is an act of great social irresponsibility

If you do not accept the very simple money that you are given by the auspices of the charity system one might be inclined to assume you do not care to be responsible for even a basic contribution to the society you live in

To underline this, here is a listing of some of the things that are probably supposed to be taken care of by a small welfare cheque:

·        Taking responsibility in social interaction and the fight against isolation and victimization.

·        The wearing of dignified, even normal attire as befits an honest citizen, Then let me mention (shamefully) personal responsibility you such as cleaning with a legitimate and good quality soap, and taking care not to remain a danger to the health and comfort of others around you (i.e. taking a bath on a regular basis).

·        a realistic and logical attitude towards the climate that you are living in (for the same reason) so that you would not get over-concerned with being properly dressed for a climate that you are nowhere near because someone gave you the clothes free.

These things are very personal and the cheque is given so that the recipient can handle them themselves.

Fearing the impersonal charity system

I am already afraid of a very brutal and impersonal charitable system (at times). So naturally, I am hesitant to protest the meager sum I receive.  When the sum is so small the possibility of victimization is very present.  Certainly, it is impractical in regards to taking care of my own personal care. However, fear of the system will prohibit me from protesting there has been some monies taking away from my cheque unless I am certain it has been done (or my back is in a corner). 

The person who is receiving the monies has been, usually, in my past experience, if not in a better financial or family situation, is certainly much more able to communicate to others than myself (I cannot speak very well and I am isolated), It has also been my experience that when the person who has taken the sum away, will protest vehemently, forcefully and with a great deal of conviction about some essential lacks in my moral and legal character (for example, my uselessness).  Unfortunately, this character defamation has been used, in my past experience, with great success.

What if the money had been diplomatically sliced into half?

Let’s say the money I have been entitled to has been neatly cut before I even receive the cheque.  And when I receive the cheque there is no indication of tampering or delegating. If I do not know my money is being siphoned off by someone else, how can I begin to look for solutions to the problem?  For one thing, the idea that I am being misrepresented as (through mistaken charitable intent) willingly and supposedly devotedly refusing the money for aesthetic reasons rankles me enormously. 

Also The situation is aggravated with the unwise delegation by a person who is receiving social assistance of the essential monies allocated to her. This, to the officers writing the cheques could be very easily deemed offensive. The question arises in my head as to what would happen if, the authorities that write the cheque, eradicate any traces of the original sum of money that has been delegated to me? Especially if the sum has been tampered with.

If the Need is so Urgent Use your Own Money

(or Apply for Your Own Welfare Cheque)

Let's suppose that the sum that I received from the last resort department of the government (or a financial gift from an affluent member of society as a gesture of appreciation) has been tampered with. let's suppose the money has been used in a responsible and valuable manner (albeit for another family unit that is completely out of my sphere). If this happened with my cheque then I have to ask: if the need for this person is so great, why is their organization hiding under my coattails. Instead of confiscating illicit monies from a poor woman (who must receive an allowance from the last resort financial assistance department of the welfare system in order to satisfy even basic needs) then, for God's sake,  ask for these poor monies with your own name. Certainly, you would not be refused if your need is so urgent.

Let's take the issue further by looking at the confiscation of funds (for socially responsible reasons) at another angle and another level. I have seen instances of someone confiscating someone else’s money and using this fund to constructing expensive buildings (philanthropic or otherwise) for clearly personal reasons: such as making sure the site would be (conveniently near) near the person’s house. One such endeavor was the construction of an extremely expensive building in the commerce faculty of a prestigious university. Since the money was “free” (like winning the lottery) then it was treated as found money and therefore could be used in such a manner without wasting time worrying about cost, efficiency or duration.  

Another thing. It is fine and dandy to be frugal and pious and do good works with the money you have. It is a different thing if you confiscate someone else’s money and leave them vulnerable or worse. Stick to having the money to give out in the first place. If you want to do good works, do it with your money, not someone else's.

The Foremost Responsibility of a Recipient of Government Charity

I am dependant on social assistance.  It is my contention that my first and foremost responsibility as someone who is on government charity is to remain as independent and as valuable a member of society as possible. Knowing that the sum I receive is more than half below the poverty line, I deliberately, and with my father's advice (now defunct), believe it is not my right to give to charity.  The money I live off of is charity given to me by a burdened government department for the poor so it is not for me to delegate this essential sum of money to something else.

Therefore, it is disheartening to be assumed to be willingly giving to (even) a significant other a large percentage (think half) of the money that is supposed to be delegated to me.  And this without any explanation.

Whatever might be assumed as for the reason why I give out this money (i.e. that I feel I do not deserve it (or a significant other feels I do not need it) the reasoning is moot as long as the money remains essential sum to myself as someone living beneath the poverty line. When the sum is so small the possibility of victimization is very present and the money wisely used will help relegate this. I am sure the authorities handing out the cheque will look at this action with a jaded eye. So much so, that they might, realistically, delegate the money as quickly and efficiently as possible in order to not get embroiled in the whole mess. This behavior of government officials might be,  by hostile entities, used to great advantage.