Drug tests for People trying to get the dole

[nin015]

.[/QUOTE]

What percentage of true dole bludgers are you expecting to catch? I would be surprised if more than 10% of those on the dole are happy not to be searching for work and would rather pull cones all day than get a job. Most people on welfare are doing the right thing and have legitimate reasons for needing this help. The costs of testing the whole population would far out way the few million dollars they would save. Not to mention the poor bastards who get penalised because they happy to be passed a spliff at a BBQ and wanted to escape their dire life for a few hours. We are a wealthy country who should pride themselves on a healthy welfare system. We are hardly like Greece with every man wanting a free handout and not willing to put in.

People should worry more about their own affairs rather than try and destroy the weak and the poor. If you are jealous of their lifestyle pack it in and see how wonderful that life is for your self.

I'm not sure how many they would catch but either way I believe it isn't right and should be stopped even if its 1%. I do agree if the cost of test kits are going to be very expesnse then they shouldn't go through with it.
but for different reasons to what you guys are arguing.

I am worried about my personal affairs because I want to pay as little tax as possible and the tax I do pay I want it spent on things that better society.

There are lots of chances out there for people to better themselfs even if you are poor (this is the benefit of living in this great country) but some people don't want to put in the work and then want to complain that they are hard done by.

The dole isn't and shouldn't be easy to live off and trust me im not jealous of anyone on it.

 

[laugh]

i think you would change your tune if you say developed a disability or an illness...the old bs if you work hard anything is achievable is good in theory but its just not practical in the real world...its a nice story though filled with hope.

i look after number one but not at the expense of those less fortunate. to me thats un australian

its all about the money...iv done business in sydney i know how important money is in the rat race but there is more to life than money...i pity you brother

 

[spacejunk]

I think most people understand the concept of the aging population, the phasing out of old-age pensions, and why we now pay superannuation, but I'm not sure you do. It is not the government phasing out welfare altogether, it has more to do with the age of the post-war baby boomers.

Taxpayer's money belongs to all of us. Once you pay it, you can have whatever opinion you like about it, but that money is no longer yours - it is ours. Thats how the state functions.

Drug testing people is expensive. Drug testing is a huge industry, that would be a major expense for any institution and a bureaucratic nightmare to administer.
Do you think they should have nurses with urine booths at centrelink?
Why stop there? Maybe we should start a racial purity eugenics program too.

I disagree that it isn't the taxpayers money for the simple fact that if we didn't pay tax then where would the money come from?

the more tax payers money is wasted or the more money that is spent on policies that are useless the more tax we have to pay. (the drug testing may be a waste of money) but I think spending welfare on illegal drugs is a waste too.

I don't know if you guys realise but it won't be long before certain welfare payments won't be around anymore for instance the old age pension won't be around by the time most of us retire.

Do anyone know how much a drug testing kit costs? I guess the government could get it slightly cheaper if it bought in bulk?

 

[nin015]

I wouldn't have brought the age pension up if i didn't know anything about it. 9% super won't be enough to retire on anyway unless you put in additional contributions.

tax payers money is our money but depends on how much we pay as to how it affects my wallet (my money) the more waste the less in my wallet because it goes to the government. If only I could say next time the tax rates go up I don't have to pay because its not my money.

nurses at booths might be a good idea if 90% of welfare receipents were using welfare for illegal drug purchases but since there not no I don't think its a good idea.

I live in Sydney maybe that's why I put importance on money but trust me I know it's not everything no need to pitty me.

Money helps you live a good life but by no means can you by happiness. If you could id pay for Mondays to be taken off the calendar.

 

[spacejunk]

Sounds totalitarian to me.
If you honestly think your tax rate will change based upon such penny-pinching measures (aimed at the poor) I think you're mistaken. Again, I will point out that social welfare is not waste.

Individual greed is a bigger problem than unemployed people smoking pot.
It's the reason rent is so high and why people in australia think these are "tough times" economically.
You think your wallet is suffering? Try being on welfare.

 

[nin015]

You keep bringing up the nanny state etc but wouldn't you say that welfare is a nanny state policy?

I personally hate nanny state policies but sometimes they're helpful (like welfare).

I hope I never become disable either but I have income protection and private health insurance to cover me financially if I do.

you can't tell me that tax rates haven't been raised before to cover deficits? The mining tax and carbon tax come to mind as much as you want to argue what they're for you can't tell me a portion of it isn't to bring about a surplus?

 

[spacejunk]

you can't tell me that tax rates haven't been raised before to cover deficits? The mining tax and carbon tax come to mind as much as you want to argue what they're for you can't tell me a portion of it isn't to bring about a surplus?

I was waiting for this to be trotted out. It's getting very off-topic.
I'm strongly in favour of pricing carbon (carbon "tax" is a misnomer) and the mining tax.
Companies that post annual multi billion dollar profits should pay adequate tax to the Australian people if they are going to sell minerals they tear out of our environment. Both these "taxes" you speak of are directed at industry, not individuals.
So...less money out of your wallet, more into the community.

 

[nin015]

It is getting off topic now. We have different views lets leave it as that.

Companies pay 30% tax and mining companies pay royalties on top of that. The more they earn the more they pay sounds fair too me.

I could lie and say I have mining shares and that would effect my wallet.

The two taxes were an example of governments regaining money through taxes sure they're not individual taxes biy they still can effect the Individual tax payer.

 

[spacejunk]

The rich help support society's safety net. Sounds fair to me.
Pass us the bong wouldja?

 

[opi8]

Another time I agree with Busty, wow. Maybe I'm turning into Fiona Patten (yeah, off-topic political junk, wut?)

nin015, I wasn't calling you names when I typed you were either too young or too dumb to understand [this issue]. I was suggesting that your intelligence may be below par. Based on your spelling, your profession must not involve any English language.

We probably disagree with everything socially and politically. I'm sure we would not get along more than necessary in real life but that's ok, that's life. You don't have to get along with everyone in the world, there's a lot of other people who share similar interests and ideas who are more fun anyway.

Since you like talking about off-topic, pro Liberal, anything to dodge issue at hand, if you have the time, have a look at this video which is a TED talk about taxes and the better off. I'd be interested to know if you agree with it or not.

 

[Dr Phibes]

I am sure there are some big US drug companies that would love us to bring in as much drug testing they can get their greedy little hands on.

Even junkies eat. It doesn't matter if you give them a job, lock them in gaol, give them the dole or have your PS3 stolen. They are not going to lie in the gutter and die.

Society will feed us one way or another.

 

[nin015]

It's discussing American politics... the rich in America don't pay tax it's a joke very different to Australia.

My spelling is very ordinary I agree, my last manager asked me if English was my second language haha. Having said that allot of my messages on here are on my mobile so allot of it's descriptive text and typos.

I wouldn't say I'm completely pro Liberal I know I've come across that way on some (most even) of my posts here. I would most likely vote for a party that would have drug legalisation as a policy no matter what side of the fence they sit. I have also voted for the left in the past when I thought the right had nothing to offer.

I don't know if we would disagree on everything that's a very rash statement for someone that knows me from about 5 posts on a website.

if calling me dumb is not name calling what is? Just because I have a different opinion? If that's the case I hope I am.

 

[laugh]

well your doing better than me nino i have enough difficulty telling the left from the right at times...thank Dog we only have two parties to vote for

 

[nin015]

well your doing better than me nino i have enough difficulty telling the left from the right at times...thank Dog we only have two parties to vote for

haha!

 

[opi8]

It's discussing American politics... the rich in America don't pay tax it's a joke very different to Australia.

That's correct, I wasn't asking for an explanation, I was asking if you agreed with it or not.

if calling me dumb is not name calling what is? Just because I have a different opinion? If that's the case I hope I am.

I didn't call you dumb, I said that you were either too young or too dumb to understand [the issue].

Maybe I could have phrased it differently, such as, if you knew more about the subject at hand you would not have these views, however, I didn't. It's not name calling and it's not because you have a different opinion. That's like saying I call Christians "names" because of their beliefs and inability to learn/understand science. Oh hang on, that's right, I do. Sorry - carry on.

 

[nin015]

That's correct, I wasn't asking for an explanation, I was asking if you agreed with it or not.

I didn't call you dumb, I said that you were either too young or too dumb to understand [the issue].

Maybe I could have phrased it differently, such as, if you knew more about the subject at hand you would not have these views, however, I didn't. It's not name calling and it's not because you have a different opinion. That's like saying I call Christians "names" because of their beliefs and inability to learn/understand science. Oh hang on, that's right, I do. Sorry - carry on.

I don't get it....
1. The video was about America and we're talking about Australia.
2. I'm arguing that wasteful items should be stopped so that everyone pays less tax.
3. I don't think age has anything too do with it but anyway I'm above 30 if that is too old or hopefully too young?
4. I have my own opinions and have argued this across a couple of pages using examples... which I would have thought proved I'm not dumb. (if you think bad spelling is a sign of limited intelligence then read a bit about Colin Leslie... lucky I work with numbers too)
5. Dumb or too dumb (yes you're right I'm too dumb to understand the difference if it's not name calling) apart from the too in front of it?
6. I said I was for the testing of people on the dole in "simple theory" but asked questions as too how it would work so no need to phrase it differently just read what I've written.

That's all for now.

 

[footscrazy]

I didn't call you dumb, I said that you were either too young or too dumb to understand [the issue].

Maybe I could have phrased it differently, such as, if you knew more about the subject at hand you would not have these views, however, I didn't. It's not name calling and it's not because you have a different opinion.

Through a medium such as a forum I think it's wise to phrase things in a non antagonising way if possible. It's easy to misintepret text. In my opinion, calling someone too dumb to understand an issue is calling them dumb, even if just in this context.

I don't generally agree with nin015's opinion on this topic but I think some comments (from various users) have been unecessarily harsh towards him.

nin015 I am interested to know whether you think this measure would save money overall. I think that direct costs/benefits are easier to conceptualise than indirect ones. It's easier to think about people spending so much of their dole payment on drugs, but perhaps harder to conceptualise the indirect costs that may occur as a result of reducing welfare. As someone so succinctly said, addicts aren't going to just lie down and die if they don't get their dole payment. They'll get money in other ways - through crime, or burdening family or friends. I think that these indirect costs will vastly outweigh any meagre savings from reducing welfare.

 

[mister]

So what happens to the people who test positive and are refused the dole? how do they support their families, habits and living expenses if they cant get a job and have been refused the dole?

They go and commit crime to eat and live of course, so the crime rate will soar and then the jail population will explode, prison will teach them even more tricks and harden them up plus make them even more bitter towards society, then release them back in to society without a cent, a criminal record and no way to get a job........Ive heard this before!! thats right, America.

Im sorry but we as a nation can afford to pay people a measly bit of dole so they can eat, live and if they choose, smoke pot or drink too much. The alternatives are grim for all of us

 

[nin015]

nin015 I am interested to know whether you think this measure would save money overall. I think that direct costs/benefits are easier to conceptualise than indirect ones. It's easier to think about people spending so much of their dole payment on drugs, but perhaps harder to conceptualise the indirect costs that may occur as a result of reducing welfare. As someone so succinctly said, addicts aren't going to just lie down and die if they don't get their dole payment. They'll get money in other ways - through crime, or burdening family or friends. I think that these indirect costs will vastly outweigh any meagre savings from reducing welfare.

I don't think it's going to save money no, that's why I agree they shouldn't bother with the policy and yes I agree it will bring about other indirect costs such as crime etc.

My argument is that I agree with the policy in 'simple theory" that dole money shouldn't be used for illegal drugs. If there was a cheap way in stopping that illegal spend then I would be all for it. Not because I'm against drug use but I'm against tax payers money being used for something that it isn't intended to be spent on (just like I would be against a union official spending union members fees on pros)....

 

[mister]

My argument is that I agree with the policy in 'simple theory" that dole money shouldn't be used for illegal drugs.

Im probably jumping in a little late but how do you hypothesise they stop people from spending their dole money on drugs?, and when you say drugs do you also mean alcohol, cigarettes, OTC medications, petrol, solvents and obviously some prescription drugs?

All of the different drugs mentioned above are abused by people on the dole as well as people who work. Or is it all about illegal drugs?

Food stamps wouldnt work because unscrupulous dealers will swap food stamps for drugs, testing people is the only way, but when you get back to the same problem of when you actually stop their dole payments, crime and prostitution will inevitable rise.