This genuinely baffles me. I can't help but feel like they are a teen begging for an extra $10 to buy some shoes and Dad says "no, we can't afford it," while buying a new flat-screen TV for the master bedroom in the same week.

Increasing Newstart by $75/week will cost an estimated $2 billion a year. That seems like a lot of money, and it is, but Deloitte Access Economics (commissioned by ACOSS to research the impact of raising Newstart by $75/week) estimates that raising the rate by this much will actually result in the creation of more than 10,000 jobs - not to mention improvement in the lives of those experiencing unemployment.

The Australian reported that the PM's response to Deloitte's report was to dismiss the suggestion that raising the rate could stimulate the economy and enhance jobs growth. He said that his government was supporting the economy through delivering on tax breaks and changing the deeming rate for "welfare recipients with shares and dividends."

I'd love to meet these welfare unicorns with a booming investment portfolio.

What's more, stage 3 of the tax breaks given to the wealthier people of the nation will cost $18 billion when they are rolled out in 2024.

That's well in excess of the cost of the proposed increase to the Newstart allowance, but I guess there aren't many people on welfare who can afford to contribute to the political parties running things. Unless they liquidate those share portfolios, of course.

At the end of the day it's not a matter of cost, it's a matter of priorities.

And then comes the justifications.

We are constantly reminded that Newstart was never meant to be a living wage, but a stop gap between jobs. However, the average time spent on Newstart is 156 weeks and despite what the payment may have been designed for, the reality is that the payment needs to allow the recipients to survive on it.

We can't pray the poverty away, despite our PM's supposed Hillsong dedication to "more love and less judgment" in this country.

The best form of welfare is a job, we are told again and again, but unemployment is a highly complex issue that engages with mental health, physical health, trauma, disability, poverty, financial loss and homelessness.

Jobs are a huge part of the solution to unemployment, but they aren't the only part of the story.

We need to be able to support people experiencing unemployment to be able to deal with any issues they have with these areas to ensure they are able to find work and, when they do, to ensure they can retain and perform well.

Social media is a breeding ground for complaining about the stereotype of people living on Newstart spending their money on alcohol, cigarettes and junk food.

I really have a problem with this moral self-pedestalism.

People spout statistics about those on Newstart wasting their tax dollars on a bottle of Jack or a packet of PJs.

However, they don't stop to think about the role of addiction among poorer demographics.

The connection between addiction and poverty is well-established and highly complex, not least of which because those living with addiction and in poverty simply don't have the same access to treatment and support.

Rehabilitation and recovery costs money. It's rarely a choice simply not to buy a packet of smokes this week.

This moral self-pedestalism gives those in a better place - with a secure income and the luxury of moral high ground - the misguided belief that they have the right to judge another's struggles and choices.

But we should not put ourselves in a position to levy such personal judgement on people already doing it tough.

The Nationals' proposed cashless debit card "solution" is just the government-manifestation of this morality stance.

Frankly, if I were in this situation, even if I could resist the pull of escapism through drink, I certainly wouldn't begrudge myself the odd Kit Kat - regardless of your thoughts on my purchasing choices.