■The person in question is the person in question
One issue is “support,” and then there is the issue of the family. Regarding the recent press conferences and news stories, while thinking a “scholar” shouldn’t be like this, I have been fed up, unable to stand it, and know almost nothing about what has been happening. I have intentionally remained ignorant. Basically (this time) (to begin with) it seems that families of people with money weretaking public assistance (and they should not have).
Under the law there is indeed something called a “support obligation”- this itself is something I oppose, but to discuss it here would take us further and further from “reality” so I will do no more than introduce some books that address this issue later on in this article. In the case of the Public Assistance Law, it is implemented on “the principle of the household unit.” A “household” is different from a “family,” and is described as “a group of people who live together in a single dwelling and share living expenses.” Therefore if this condition is not satisfied, i.e., if you are “separated from your household,” then even if your parents (or other [members of your family]) have money you can still receive public assistance. I think that this should be made good use of, and in fact I know several individuals who have begun to live a lifestyle removed from parental dependence. If someone “has no choice” but to be economically dependent ? whether on their parents or someone else ? then they may have no choice but to be controlled or subordinated by that person, and this is therefore not good. At very least, when both parties are adults, a “system” in which they are able to live separately is desirable.
When I say this kind of thing, there are those who object that it would corrupt or diminish “the virtue of the family.” Since “virtue” is by definition a good thing, I do not reject it. And I do not think virtue is corrupted by both parties being (or being able to be) economically independent. Relationships that cannot be maintained without economic control/subordination or interdependence are presumably not good (virtuous) relationships, and even if both parties are independent, or sometimes because they are able to be independent, it should be possible to create and maintain good relationships.
■More fundamentally
Even so, it will presumably be asserted that it is not good for someone to receive both public assistance and financial support from their family. Some may say that while it is prohibited by the principle of household separation there are people who “double dip” in such a way that they cannot be found out (as well as those who are not living on their own in any substantial sense). Assuming this is not good, should we monitor the comings and goings of people and money to make sure it doesn’t happen? In practice, however, there have been many cases of what is done under this pretext amounting to something close to, or indeed constituting a clear example of, harassment. The most obvious example of this is that of a wife with an abusive husband (whom she has not yet been able to leave) being rebuffed [by those in charge of providing public assistance] and told she must live off of his earnings. This is of course not just a problem of individual civil servants but rather of “higher” policies that are pushed by the media and “public opinion.” It is said that less than 20% of those who should be able to use public assistance are actually able to make use of this system. This is something to be lamented.
In this world in which people who are not wealthy are many, I do not see the point in these people saying of people who claim to have no money that this is not really the case, that they are not really in trouble, that they spend too much money, or other arguments along these lines. Their efforts should instead be focused on properly collecting taxes from those who have too much money. If this were done there would be less moving around of money within families. The oft-repeated mantra of “budget cuts” would weaken and money would flow smoothly. The current tax system is bizarre, but even taking this bizarre system as a given, if more people and money were allocated to tax evasion many times the amount invested in this effort could be recovered. This is something that is not said very often.
Thinking about these sorts of things takes us beyond talk of protecting the public assistance system ? although this too is something I support. Because we think of “public assistance” as a special system for people who cannot work and cannot avoid poverty, the discussion revolves around who is to be considered this sort of person. Because we talk of “minimums” and a “minimum lifestyle (culturally and in terms of physical health)” (Article 25 of the constitution), the discussion becomes a stingy debate over how much is “minimum.” It is more straightforward to consider this issue by beginning from a point at which everyone can enjoy more or less the same lifestyle and adding something extra for those who work. In saying this I do not expect to receive everyone’s approval, but it is what I believe.