From our other sites
The story
On 5ch’s “Anything Goes Live” board (なんでも実況G), a debate broke out over whether it’s acceptable to use welfare payments for gambling. Article 8 of the Public Assistance Act states that benefits are paid “to the extent needed to meet the demands of a minimum standard of living,” but there is no explicit provision in the law banning the use of benefits for gambling. Centered on this ambiguity, opinions clashed head-on between those who argue recipients should be free to spend the money however they like, and those who argue that since it’s taxpayer money, social norms should impose limits — with the discussion also touching on where to draw the line with things like mobile gacha spending and live-streaming “super chat” donations.
What people said
What matters is Japan's classic honne-tatemae (real feelings vs. public face) split.
That's because it's built on the pretense that pachinko isn't gambling.
It's support meant to help them rebuild their lives.
I can't understand why people treat it like pocket money.
There's no solid legal basis for saying you can't use it on gambling.
Apparently some LDP lawmakers want to restrict the human rights of welfare recipients and the elderly — that's a scary thing to hear.
Even if it's meant to help you rebuild your life, stress relief matters too.
I think so too.
Asking for extra payments because you lost it gambling doesn't hold up, though.
In practice they don't give extra payments — that's just common sense.
If gambling is off-limits, then what about manga?
What about subscribing to Netflix to watch anime?
If you go down this road, you'll keep finding more and more things to ban as 'not necessary for a minimum standard of living.'
That's a scary thought.
Entertainment and gambling aren't the same thing.
What counts as a 'solid basis,' exactly?
You can't list out every single case of 'A is banned, B is banned, C is banned…' for every possible thing in existence,
so normally it's something you judge from the purpose of the system and common social norms.
But it's not actually defined in law, is it?
Because there's no legal basis for 'you can't gamble.'
'Don't gamble on welfare' is just an emotional argument —
the argument of 'you're living off taxes, so live more modestly.'
So entertainment is okay.
Then what about spending money on mobile gacha games, or super chat donations to Vtubers?
Is that okay because it's not gambling, or not?
Wouldn't that fall under entertainment as long as it's within a reasonable range? It's not gambling either.
If you want a clear answer, go file a lawsuit and ask a judge.
Already sounds like you're losing the argument.
Try harder.
What exactly counts as a 'reasonable range,' in actual numbers?
And who decides that anyway? Do you have the authority to decide?
Up to how much money is that allowed?
Actually, why does anyone get to decide that in the first place?
Because that money is government money, paid out by the state for the purpose of guaranteeing 'a minimum standard of healthy and cultured living.'
It's tax money that citizens worked hard to pay, being handed over to you.
Since it's the public's money, it's only natural that using it irresponsibly gets criticized.
That's a cop-out.
You're twisting the fact that the law can't list out every single 'A is banned, B is banned, C is banned…' into an excuse.
That's pure sophistry.
If it's not written in the law, isn't it fine to do it?
Why not? If it's supposed to be banned, shouldn't there be a clear legal basis for banning it?
Saving it is also allowed.
But with gambling, if you win money, that counts as income,
so if you don't report it, that's a clear violation.
That's exactly right.
Gambling itself is free, but if you don't declare your winnings as income, that's fraud.
They'll turn a blind eye if you save up a few hundred thousand yen for something like buying an air conditioner,
but if you save up over a million yen with the future in mind, your benefits get cut off — it's a baffling system.
If you commit fraud, you have to pay back ten times what you took.
Well, that's hard to enforce in practice, so the only real option is prison labor.
I already said you need to report it.
Winnings should be reported to the municipality or your caseworker as extra income.
If you pocket it without reporting, that's fraud, and that makes you a criminal.
That's for public opinion to decide.
Not you.
Oh, so it's public opinion, huh.
Where exactly does public opinion draw the line between what's allowed and what's not?
Is that reflected in the actual legal system? Does breaking it actually count as illegal?
So spell out exactly where 'reasonable' ends and 'unreasonable' begins.
Just repeating 'common sense, common sense' over and over doesn't move the discussion forward.
The whole point is that it's about a 'minimum' standard of living, after all.
It's 'a minimum standard of cultured living,' actually.
No, you're the one arguing that gambling is a no-go,
so you should be the one laying out a solid basis for your own claim,
instead of running away behind 'common sense' and 'public opinion.'
The Public Assistance Act actually says benefits are 'provided to the extent of making up for a shortfall.'
https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/law/325AC0000000144
Article 8: Assistance shall be based on the needs of the person requiring protection, as measured according to standards set by the Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare, and shall be provided to the extent of making up for the portion of that shortfall which cannot be covered by the person's own money or goods.
(2) The standards in the preceding paragraph must be sufficient to meet the needs of a minimum standard of living, taking into account necessary circumstances according to the recipient's age, sex, household composition, region of residence, and type of assistance, and must not exceed that amount.
But the first thing I want reformed is free medical care.
Even a flat 300 yen co-pay would be fine — make people pay something. Because it's completely free, people go to the doctor needlessly and medical costs balloon.
This is probably tied up with vested interests from the medical and pharmacist associations, but I wish the trend was to go after these kinds of vested interests instead.
Maybe a 10% co-pay on medical costs would be reasonable.
Background and Key Points of the Debate
There is no law that directly restricts how welfare benefits can be spent — Article 8 of the Public Assistance Act only states that benefits are paid within the range needed to meet “a minimum standard of living sufficient to satisfy need,” with no provision singling out gambling as banned. On the other hand, the system is clear on one point: money won through gambling counts as temporary income and must be reported to the welfare office, and failing to report it is treated as fraudulent receipt of benefits. In the thread, the “it’s the recipient’s own business how they spend it” camp and the “it’s tax money, so limits should apply” camp talked past each other the whole way through, and the discussion stalled because there’s no written standard for where exactly “common social norms” draw the line. The fact that pachinko is officially classified as a game of skill rather than gambling under Japanese law also came up as a symbol of just how blurry that line can be.
※This article is excerpted and summarized from the 5ch (Anything Goes Live) thread ‘[Full Debate] Is It Okay to Gamble While on Welfare?‘
Leave a Reply