Welfare support and drug testing

[mashman]

i don't know. i still think they're being railroaded by this deal.

Well the govt have to stay on track.

[Akzle]

Well the govt have to stay on track.

i think it's a mis-carriage of justice

[blue rider]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/551590_347956998625098_1951085690_n.jpg

[Akzle]

srsly? no more train puns? :(

[FJRider]

srsly? no more train puns? :(

Thread's been derailed ... oop's ... :innocent:

[frogfeaturesFZR]

We've reached a crossroads...

[mashman]

Politicians, give them an inch and they'll take your yard.

[scumdog]

Thread's been derailed ... oop's ... :innocent:

It's missed the point...

[FJRider]

It's missed the point...

There is no point ... thats what makes the thread so funny.

[mashman]

It's not that funnel at all, some don't learn a signal thing. Where do you draw the line in regards to govt handouts? When you're old and f rail, a pensioner, you shouldn't get to choo choose what you spend your money on? Begs the question, when is it fare to clip the govt ticket? First class citizens arguing that the second class citizens should be in economy before being allowed to have a platform to build a life on... all the while claiming that we should mind the gap. Tunnel vision from the fat controller and friends. There's no buffer anymore and every declares that's it's a free ride... good job that so many of you are heavy sleepers.

[Berries]

HO HO HO.


Hornby joke.

[Akzle]

There is no point ... thats what makes the thread so funny.
you f*ing moron. :facepalm:

[avgas]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/74tWHnip77k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[husaberg]

It's not that funnel at all, some don't learn a signal thing. Where do you draw the line in regards to govt handouts? When you're old and f rail, a pensioner, you shouldn't get to choo choose what you spend your money on? Begs the question, when is it fare to clip the govt ticket? First class citizens arguing that the second class citizens should be in economy before being allowed to have a platform to build a life on... all the while claiming that we should mind the gap. Tunnel vision from the fat controller and friends. There's no buffer anymore and every declares that's it's a free ride... good job that so many of you are heavy sleepers.

Your post got me thinking Pensioners pay Income tax on there pension that's right Tax on something created out of er..... Tax

[Akzle]

Your post got me thinking Pensioners pay Income tax on there pension that's right Tax on something created out of er..... Tax

it's like cops paying tax. or politicians.

i can't believe this BS should surprise you.




(no train puns. sorry)

[husaberg]

it's like cops paying tax. or politicians.

i can't believe this BS should surprise you.




(no train puns. sorry)

No Sorry i don't aggree Cops should pay tax as thats income. But the pensioner is meant to maintain them so why tax.
it makes no sense the tax money goes nowhere it never left the Winz building did it.

[FJRider]

it's like cops paying tax. or politicians.



(no train puns. sorry)

On that train of thought ... Cops and politicians pay their own wages ... :shifty:

So ... it's fair to assume, they decide how they do their job ... or have I got it wrong again :facepalm:

[husaberg]

On that train of thought ... Cops and politicians pay their own wages ... :shifty:

So ... it's fair to assume, they decide how they do their job ... or have I got it wrong again :facepalm:

I suppose so in a very small way... a very small percentage of it goes to their wages but remember healthcare ACC and so on as well.
But both esp the politicians get some quite impressive no taxed perks as well:shifty:

I think society should be judged on how they treat their children and there elderly.

Well NZ sends them to school in buses driven by people on Miniumn wage by companies that submit the lowest tender.
The elderly are looked after for the main by for profit corporate organisations that pay there employees again barely minimum wage.

[mashman]

No Sorry i don't aggree Cops should pay tax as thats income. But the pensioner is meant to maintain them so why tax.
it makes no sense the tax money goes nowhere it never left the Winz building did it.

I think he meant that every govt employee, beneficiary or service is paid for using tax payers money that has already been taxed... or is at least borrowed on the promise of tax from a future generation.

[husaberg]

I think he meant that every govt employee, beneficiary or service is paid for using tax payers money that has already been taxed... or is at least borrowed on the promise of tax from a future generation.

Granted but the reason for that % of the money collected as tax was to pay for the pay of say the policeman so its still different in IME
But i get his point maybe some people think of the pension as income, i don't. i think of it as society paying back the elderly, so they can live.
But i certainly think wages paid to School teachers Public nurses are income so should be taxed regardless of the source of the money.

[mashman]

Granted but the reason for that % of the money collected as tax was to pay for the pay of say the policeman so its still different in IME
But i get his point maybe some people think of the pension as income, i don't. i think of it as society paying back the elderly, so they can live.
But i certainly think wages paid to School teachers Public nurses are income so should be taxed regardless of the source of the money.

I don't think anyone is arguing that, as FJ points out, who else is gonna pay the police? (other than a few corporations :shifty:)... but the principle is the same, paying tax on something that has been paid for using tax.
I get what you're saying and I agree with the sentiment, but it's still paying tax on something that has been paid for using tax. I seem to remember my economics teacher saying for every $1 that goes in to the govt, it's pumped back into the economy as $3. Tis a shame that we have to think like that at all, especially when you consider that they've ALL contributed their lives to NZ and yet few have been fortunate enough to have a decent enough paying job that will have allowed them to have lived, "better". Tis a crime that they have to sell what they have to pay for being looked after in their retirement too. Claw back's a bitch eh.
I'd rather we just ditched the financial system entirely, then we won't have to teach or care to a budget.

[husaberg]

I don't think anyone is arguing that, as FJ points out, who else is gonna pay the police? (other than a few corporations :shifty:)... but the principle is the same, paying tax on something that has been paid for using tax.
I get what you're saying and I agree with the sentiment, but it's still paying tax on something that has been paid for using tax. I seem to remember my economics teacher saying for every $1 that goes in to the govt, it's pumped back into the economy as $3. Tis a shame that we have to think like that at all, especially when you consider that they've ALL contributed their lives to NZ and yet few have been fortunate enough to have a decent enough paying job that will have allowed them to have lived, "better". Tis a crime that they have to sell what they have to pay for being looked after in their retirement too. Claw back's a bitch eh.
I'd rather we just ditched the financial system entirely, then we won't have to teach or care to a budget.

Well sorry i still can't fully grasp your point and i think the premise is being carried too far.
My opinion is if a income (wage)for doing a job is paid, it has to be taxed regardless where it came from. That's my take on it.
I see both of yours and respect what you are saying, i just don't agree that some employees should have to pay tax because of who they work for.

Its a shame really we need so many police, social workers, case workers, politicians, legal aid etc.

Economics yes that's a special little subject in its self
Gee the market economy sure works well (as long as you are at the top of it)

[mashman]

Well sorry i still can't fully grasp your point and i think the premise is being carried too far.
My opinion is if a income (wage)for doing a job is paid, it has to be taxed regardless where it came from. That's my take on it.
I see both of yours and respect what you are saying, i just don't agree that some employees should have to pay tax because of who they work for.

Its a shame really we need so many police, social workers, case workers, politicians, legal aid etc.

Economics yes that's a special little subject in its self
Gee the market economy sure works well (as long as you are at the top of it)

:rofl: weeeeeeee round and round we go.

If the non-govt employee stops paying taxes there are no wages for govt employees/services. I think we all agree that income needs to be taxed irrespective of where it comes from else there's no police, social workers, case workers, politicians (no bad thing), legal aid etc... I'm not saying that anyone should be exempt. Just pointing out that, as other were alluding too, those receiving govt funds as income pay tax on the tax we've paid to pay their wages... same as the money pensioners receive. It may not be "right", but hey, it's the law. The money comes from the same place for all of them.

[husaberg]

:rofl: weeeeeeee round and round we go. Yip


If the non-govt employee stops paying taxes there are no wages for govt employees/services. I think we all agree that income needs to be taxed irrespective of where it comes from Yes


Just pointing out that, as other were alluding too, those receiving govt funds as income pay tax on the tax we've paid to pay their wages...
No i don't agree those receiving their income from the Govt coffers have to pay income tax on there income it just so happened that this money came from either a tax (or in the future the sale of an asset). the double dipping on the tax you are alluding to is just an accounting transaction the transfer on money never actually happens.(other than out of the gross wage obviously)


It may not be "right", Tax is right (for real) income earners just not for the pensioners or beneficeries.

[Ocean1]

I seem to remember my economics teacher saying for every $1 that goes in to the govt, it's pumped back into the economy as $3.

Think you might have that one backwards, mate.


I think we all agree that income needs to be taxed irrespective of where it comes from else there's no police, social workers, case workers, politicians (no bad thing), legal aid etc...

Like fuck we do, there were all of those things way way before the English invented direct tax on income a mere couple of hundred years ago to fund the war with France. It was only ever intended to be an emergency measure and in fact the local unwashed rioted a decade later and and it was repealled and all trace of the records of it publicly burned.

Later attempts remained simply because they were structured so as to advantage a voting majority, basically theft by popular demand.

[mashman]

No i don't agree those receiving their income from the Govt coffers have to pay income tax on there income it just so happened that this money came from either a tax (or in the future the sale of an asset). the double dipping on the tax you are alluding to is just an accounting transaction the transfer on money never actually happens.(other than out of the gross wage obviously)

Tax is right (for real) income earners just not for the pensioners or beneficeries.

it's on everything eh. You use your money that you've paid tax on to buy a loaf that the supermarket pays tax on who in turn bought it from the supplier that paid tax on its production etc... At the end of the day it doesn't matter where it came from, we pay it, and I think the irony was what was being highlighted. A merry go roundabout that we all literally buy into :killingme... some smart pack of cunts pat themselves on the back at a job well done... and to be honest, I can't blame them for celebrating the effectiveness of the system. Although I'm starting to think it's more of a run away train these days and the only way to stop us from noticing what is really happening is to get the central banks to cut the money supply and then lay the blame at the doors of the "bludgers", or on the greed of humanity, or on a housing bubble (make no mistake the housing bubble was known about, Greenspan said as much), or on a financial crisis, everywhere but where the "blame" needs to be laid for the mess that we find ourselves in. Pats on the back all round, time for another boom cycle :facepalm:


Think you might have that one backwards, mate.

Like fuck we do, there were all of those things way way before the English invented direct tax on income a mere couple of hundred years ago to fund the war with France. It was only ever intended to be an emergency measure and in fact the local unwashed rioted a decade later and and it was repealled and all trace of the records of it publicly burned.

Later attempts remained simply because they were structured so as to advantage a voting majority, basically theft by popular demand.

:rofl: it sure seems that way.

You can thank John Law for solving that little issue. Controller General of Finances of France and just a couple of doors down from him was the Banque Générale that he established. Modern day economics/banking born in the 16th century that's still at work today.

The vote means nothing, it's just a platitude. I wouldn't go as far as to say that elections are rigged, but I would say that result is "engineered" to weight the vote... and the end result really doesn't matter in the grand scale of things does it. Same shit different flag, familiar bag of tricks with new names and nice smiles. Comical.

[husaberg]

it's on everything eh. You use your money that you've paid tax on to buy a loaf that the supermarket pays tax on who in turn bought it from the supplier that paid tax on its production etc... At the end of the day it doesn't matter where it came from, we pay it, and I think the irony was what was being highlighted. A merry go roundabout that we all literally buy into :killingme... some smart pack of cunts pat themselves on the back at a job well done... and to be honest, I can't blame them for celebrating the effectiveness of the system. Although I'm starting to think it's more of a run away train these days and the only way to stop us from noticing what is really happening is to get the central banks to cut the money supply and then lay the blame at the doors of the "bludgers", or on the greed of humanity, or on a housing bubble (make no mistake the housing bubble was known about, Greenspan said as much), or on a financial crisis, everywhere but where the "blame" needs to be laid for the mess that we find ourselves in. Pats on the back all round, time for another boom cycle :facepalm:



:rofl: it sure seems that way.

You can thank John Law for solving that little issue. Controller General of Finances of France and just a couple of doors down from him was the Banque Générale that he established. Modern day economics/banking born in the 16th century that's still at work today.

The vote means nothing, it's just a platitude. I wouldn't go as far as to say that elections are rigged, but I would say that result is "engineered" to weight the vote... and the end result really doesn't matter in the grand scale of things does it. Same shit different flag, familiar bag of tricks with new names and nice smiles. Comical.


The biggest irony with Income or company tax for that matter is the really rich and successful don't pay any.....
As they can afford the best accountants and tax shelters that come with them,;)

[Ocean1]

You can thank John Law for solving that little issue. Controller General of Finances of France and just a couple of doors down from him was the Banque Générale that he established. Modern day economics/banking born in the 16th century that's still at work today.

Fuck all to do with banks. You don't need to look for any shady bastards behind your misfortunes, they're right there in front of you: the arseholes that voted to take 54% of my income and share it amongst themselves. Them, and the ones thad failed to vote not to.


The vote means nothing, it's just a platitude. I wouldn't go as far as to say that elections are rigged, but I would say that result is "engineered" to weight the vote... and the end result really doesn't matter in the grand scale of things does it. Same shit different flag, familiar bag of tricks with new names and nice smiles. Comical.

Any party that has any hope of generating policy needs votes. They need to tax as many people as much as possible in order that they can buy the majority of votes. I can understand the stupid cnuts that just can't figure it out, it's the grasping arseholes that vote as they do knowing full well where the promises are funded from but do it anyway that I'd like to punch in the throat.

[mashman]

Fuck all to do with banks. You don't need to look for any shady bastards behind your misfortunes, they're right there in front of you: the arseholes that voted to take 54% of my income and share it amongst themselves. Them, and the ones thad failed to vote not to.

Any party that has any hope of generating policy needs votes. They need to tax as many people as much as possible in order that they can buy the majority of votes. I can understand the stupid cnuts that just can't figure it out, it's the grasping arseholes that vote as they do knowing full well where the promises are funded from but do it anyway that I'd like to punch in the throat.

Nothing to do with the banks? My misfortune is all down to me and no one else? And voting will make a difference? Thank god you're here, I coulda sworn it was the exact opposite.

Do you think that would change if you were allowed to keep all of your money? Would rego, fuel, bread, power, water, healthcare etc... costs rise to offset the money that's required to "ru(i)n" a country? aaaand iffen you don't vote, you can't complain :killingme... or so I've been told. So unfortunately that means that people will use their votes or they'll have to be forever silent. Praps they should be threatened with a punch in the throat so that they vote in the manner required by such smart fellas such as yerself.

[FJRider]

Do you think that would change if you were allowed to keep all of your money? Would rego, fuel, bread, power, water, healthcare etc... costs rise to offset the money that's required to "ru(i)n" a country?

Theoretically ... if tax wasn't paid from wages/salary ... more money would be in circulation. Thus more money from GST, and tax on Bank savings/interest.

[mashman]

The biggest irony with Income or company tax for that matter is the really rich and successful don't pay any.....
As they can afford the best accountants and tax shelters that come with them,;)

Thems is the rules of the game eh...


Theoretically ... if tax wasn't paid from wages/salary ... more money would be in circulation. Thus more money from GST, and tax on Bank savings/interest.

Twue... apart from the more money in circulation bit, theoretically... we'd get richer quicker and the money supply would be tied up in the imaginary fake market leading us right back to square 1... or most likely square 1971

[FJRider]

Twue... apart from the more money in circulation bit, theoretically... we'd get richer quicker and the money supply would be tied up in the imaginary fake market leading us right back to square 1... or most likely square 1971

So ... on what would you spend the money ... you didn't need to pay in income tax ... ???

[husaberg]

Thems is the rules of the game eh...



Twue... apart from the more money in circulation bit, theoretically... we'd get richer quicker and the money supply would be tied up in the imaginary fake market leading us right back to square 1... or most likely square 1971

Nah we need that imaginary fake money that doesn't exist otherwise where would we be. Imagine life without banks and Wall street.
In fact all the Senior exec's of the top 100 US firms should give themselves a another 20% raise (subject to tax payer bailout funding of course)

[mashman]

So ... on what would you spend the money ... you didn't need to pay in income tax ... ???

Likely on exactly the same things that the govt does as well as the inflated prices for every commodity that would make up the de-regulated free market economy. You?


Nah we need that imaginary fake money that doesn't exist otherwise where would we be. Imagine life without banks and Wall street.
In fact all the Senior exec's of the top 100 US firms should give themselves a another 20% raise (subject to tax payer bailout funding of course)

I have imagined it and you're gettin me hard talkin about it... tell me more :sweatdrop

[Ocean1]

Nothing to do with the banks? My misfortune is all down to me and no one else? And voting will make a difference? Thank god you're here, I coulda sworn it was the exact opposite.

Well, based on past performance being wrong yet again shouldn't come as a huge shock to you. I know there's a long list of people and organisations you'd like to blame for a truely epic list of shit you don't like, but yes, basically if you don't like your life then the only people you have to blame other than yourself is anyone that thieved some of your property.


Do you think that would change if you were allowed to keep all of your money?

Fuck, leme see... everyone not actually capable of earning their keep would have to ask those that do nicely for the readies. Yep, that's a winner to start with.



Would rego, fuel, bread, power, water, healthcare etc... costs rise to offset the money that's required to "ru(i)n" a country?

Who gives a fuck? Whatever it costs you'd be deciding whether you can afford it based on your own income, not mine.


aaaand iffen you don't vote, you can't complain :killingme... or so I've been told. So unfortunately that means that people will use their votes or they'll have to be forever silent. Praps they should be threatened with a punch in the throat so that they vote in the manner required by such smart fellas such as yerself.

Perfectly correct. Thought you'd never see sense.

[mashman]

Well, based on past performance being wrong yet again shouldn't come as a huge shock to you. I know there's a long list of people and organisations you'd like to blame for a truely epic list of shit you don't like, but yes, basically if you don't like your life then the only people you have to blame other than yourself is anyone that thieved some of your property.

Fuck, leme see... everyone not actually capable of earning their keep would have to ask those that do nicely for the readies. Yep, that's a winner to start with.

Who gives a fuck? Whatever it costs you'd be deciding whether you can afford it based on your own income, not mine.

Perfectly correct. Thought you'd never see sense.

Always keen to learn something new. You shoulda stopped at "I know" and then tagged on "fuck all" in regards to the rhyme and reasons for my distaste of how some do business. Go on, tell me how you know that I don't like my life oh sage of the sea...

:rofl: can't wait to see that pearl of wisdom come to fruition. Is your name Gina per chance? (for context (http://nz.finance.yahoo.com/news/drink-less-more-billionaire-tells-152654355.html))

Not at all, I'd be borrowing against the promise of some hair brained financial scam and then pleading ignorance when it went tits up before swanning off to some sunlit island fo tequila and bitches bra... failing that I'd borrow it from those who didn't look like they needed it. So no, it wouldn't be based solely on my income.

:rofl: I see you're a proponent of free speech

[Ocean1]

Always keen to learn something new. You shoulda stopped at "I know" and then tagged on "fuck all" in regards to the rhyme and reasons for my distaste of how some do business. Go on, tell me how you know that I don't like my life oh sage of the sea...

I don't give a flying fuck whether you like it or not, you could take a cue, there, rather than bitch about how others manage their affairs.


Not at all, I'd be borrowing against the promise of some hair brained financial scam and then pleading ignorance when it went tits up before swanning off to some sunlit island fo tequila and bitches bra... failing that I'd borrow it from those who didn't look like they needed it. So no, it wouldn't be based solely on my income.

In which case I think I see why you seem to have so much trouble with banks. And why you'd like to un-invent money. Srsly, if you think it's that easy give it a shot, eh? Maybe you'd score an island with lager and pork pies, y'never know.


:rofl: I see you're a proponent of free speech

Nothing is free.

But nothing.

[husaberg]

In which case I think I see why you seem to have so much trouble with banks. And why you'd like to un-invent money. Srsly, if you think it's that easy give it a shot, eh? Maybe you'd score an island with lager and pork pies, y'never know.



Nothing is free.

But nothing.
I don't normally butt (ok i often do:innocent:)in but the financial institutions actually "do invent money" that's how they make such good profits they are able to lend out far more money than they actually have the monetary assets to cover.

I have never had any trouble borrowing money BTW, but why can't i just invent it the same way as the banks do.
i know i would charge myself less interest;)

[Ocean1]

I don't normally butt (ok i often do:innocent:)in but the financial institutions actually "do invent money" that's how they make such good profits they are able to lend out far more money than they actually have the monetary assets to cover.

I stand to be corrected, but I'm tolerably sure they have to have a certain minimum actually on hand. And the rest isn't "invented" so much as it represents the value of your eventual repayments.


I have never had any trouble borrowing money BTW, but why can't i just invent it the same way as the banks do.
i know i would charge myself less interest;)


You probably could. All you need is access to the same investors and/or securities they do. And if you're interested in sticking it to the banks, or any other lending institution then the very best way is to fail to sign a loan agreement with them.

[mashman]

I don't give a flying fuck whether you like it or not, you could take a cue, there, rather than bitch about how others manage their affairs.

In which case I think I see why you seem to have so much trouble with banks. And why you'd like to un-invent money. Srsly, if you think it's that easy give it a shot, eh? Maybe you'd score an island with lager and pork pies, y'never know.

Nothing is free.

But nothing.

It's not a case of liking it or not, well not entirely, but some folk handle their affairs to the detriment of others and I see no reason why I should let that go just because I have the option to do so. I can't stop you from pretending that bad people don't exist, but I'll not join you in that world.

I'm guessing that you don't see anything of the kind... but at least you're allowed to voice your opinion. I will give it a shot at some point... in the meantime I have a family to provide for before taking ya'll on in a game of global domination. I'll settle for lager and pork pies... t'was once my staple diet but the pork pies over here pale in comparison to thems from blighty.

There are plenty of free things in this world, you just have to take them.

[Ocean1]

It's not a case of liking it or not, well not entirely, but some folk handle their affairs to the detriment of others and I see no reason why I should let that go just because I have the option to do so. I can't stop you from pretending that bad people don't exist, but I'll not join you in that world.

Of course they do, but you're particular bogeymen wouldn't exist if greedy people didn't think they stood a chance at earning something for nothing.


I'll settle for lager and pork pies... t'was once my staple diet but the pork pies over here pale in comparison to thems from blighty.

I've had them, they were shite. Well, except the 2lb jobs from a wee butcher in Chesterfield. Most of the more southern versions contained such a paltry wee dried lump of gristle they rattled when you shook 'em.



There are plenty of free things in this world, you just have to take them.

TANSTAFL.

Ever.

[mashman]

I stand to be corrected, but I'm tolerably sure they have to have a certain minimum actually on hand. And the rest isn't "invented" so much as it represents the value of your eventual repayments.

bwaaaaa ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa. They pull money out of thin air to pay for bonds that are pulled out of thin air (or some other brand new low interest imaginary value bearing debt) and they have to have a certain minimum on hand? You don't think that thems that create the money will just say that they have that certain minimum on hand? Who's going to validate that that money exists? As Greenspan said himself when talking about the Federal Reserve Bank "there is no other agency of government which can overrule actions that we take". Bonus points for spotting the mistake in his claim. The debt is interest bearing. Where does the money for the interest come from if you're printing new money? er, er, er, er... you may be tolerably sure that they need a certain minimum in reserve (I'm pretty sure that it's only the banks that the central banks lend to that need to have that reserve, could be wrong, but as they control the creation of money, it'd be kinda moot to impose such a requirement?), but make no mistake anything of value that the "new" money is valued against is also plucked out of thin air. S'ok though, they're trusting sorts

[mashman]

Of course they do, but you're particular bogeymen wouldn't exist if greedy people didn't think they stood a chance at earning something for nothing.

I've had them, they were shite. Well, except the 2lb jobs from a wee butcher in Chesterfield. Most of the more southern versions contained such a paltry wee dried lump of gristle they rattled when you shook 'em.

TANSTAFL.

Ever.

From my perspective profit is earning something for nothing. You make a product that is worth X and if the Y that you take in is greater than X then you have earned something from nothing. Technically :innocent:

Aye, there are them thar places that pump out the mouth drying limp of rock often labeled Melton Mowbray... Pork Farms were feckin delicious junk food pork pies... we only had the butcher stuff on special occasions... even then it depended on the butcher (fewer and far between as a business these days :weep:)

:rofl: tell that to the celebs that receive free stuff from designers etc... or to the homeless that get food from the soup kitchen... or to the banks that pluck money out of thin air. It should all be free though :innocent:

[husaberg]

I stand to be corrected, but I'm tolerably sure they have to have a certain minimum actually on hand. And the rest isn't "invented" so much as it represents the value of your eventual repayments.




You probably could. All you need is access to the same investors and/or securities they do. And if you're interested in sticking it to the banks, or any other lending institution then the very best way is to fail to sign a loan agreement with them.

I can speak for the banks outside the US but the US bank are able to lend out 10 times more money than they have the capital to cover.

This is why i say invent money its quite a profitable business as well,
until the poos hit the fan, but never min the good old tax payer is there to bail them out when it goes pear shaped.
Now it seem this madness continues on to the other financial institutions as well as evidence by the bail out of Wall street.
Not to mention the bailout here of the financial institutions who lent money they didn't have.
No worries though the tax payer will bail them out it. Yet No one will be held accountable (unless they are a soft target SCF) It would have been a fair call if it had a been a bank but those people made a conscious decision to invest in something less secure in order to reap higher returns.
Therefor hey deserved to lose there money, as do anyone else who invests in the stock market in companies that have no tangible assets or products.

PS do you think the US Government owns the US federal reserve bank.
http://land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/federal_reserve.shtml
http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-owns-the-federal-reserve/
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-09/wall_street/31040431_1_interest-rates-big-banks-member-banks

[Ocean1]

bwaaaaa ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa. They pull money out of thin air to pay for bonds that are pulled out of thin air (or some other brand new low interest imaginary value bearing debt) and they have to have a certain minimum on hand? You don't think that thems that create the money will just say that they have that certain minimum on hand? Who's going to validate that that money exists? As Greenspan said himself when talking about the Federal Reserve Bank "there is no other agency of government which can overrule actions that we take". Bonus points for spotting the mistake in his claim. The debt is interest bearing. Where does the money for the interest come from if you're printing new money? er, er, er, er... you may be tolerably sure that they need a certain minimum in reserve (I'm pretty sure that it's only the banks that the central banks lend to that need to have that reserve, could be wrong, but as they control the creation of money, it'd be kinda moot to impose such a requirement?), but make no mistake anything of value that the "new" money is valued against is also plucked out of thin air. S'ok though, they're trusting sorts

No cigar. Any money simply "plucked from thin air" doesn't actually have any value, therefore it effectively devalues the whole economy. Which isn't to say that something similar doesn't happen, it's just that in order for it to work you need to have a sucker that's prepared to believe that he can indeed make something from nothing. Guess who ends up paying for that assumption?

Like I said, if you don't think the various financial institutions have a product that you think is worth the asking price then I strongly suggest that you don't buy 'em. Problem fixd.

[Ocean1]

From my perspective profit is earning something for nothing. You make a product that is worth X and if the Y that you take in is greater than X then you have earned something from nothing. Technically :innocent:

Wrong. Again. Certainly it's often possible to convince some sucker to pay you more for something that you paid for yourself. But the more usual way to make a profit, (notice that M word there?) is to add value to a product and THEN sell it for more than you paid for it. Same deal as above: you need to convince the client he's getting something that's worth his hard earned.


:rofl: tell that to the celebs that receive free stuff from designers etc... or to the homeless that get food from the soup kitchen... or to the banks that pluck money out of thin air. It should all be free though :innocent:

Nothing, nothing that's worth anything at all is ever plucked out of thin air. You can assume that if some fashion house gives some catwalk tart a free skivvy it's because they'll benefit from it by more than the face value of the gift. The soup doesn't instantly materialise just because the homeless are a tad peckish innit? Some bastard paid for it didn't he?

TANSTFL.

[Ocean1]

I can speak for the banks outside the US but the US bank are able to lend out 10 times more money than they have the capital to cover.

17% last time I looked.

As for the rest, couldn't agree more, those that take the risk should take the consequences of failure.

[mashman]

No cigar. Any money simply "plucked from thin air" doesn't actually have any value, therefore it effectively devalues the whole economy. Which isn't to say that something similar doesn't happen, it's just that in order for it to work you need to have a sucker that's prepared to believe that he can indeed make something from nothing. Guess who ends up paying for that assumption?

Like I said, if you don't think the various financial institutions have a product that you think is worth the asking price then I strongly suggest that you don't buy 'em. Problem fixd.

Greenspan said "no other agency of government" and as hussyvoice pointed out in his post, the Fed isn't a govt agency. Supply and demand. If the money is required, it will add value... else the economy would have collapsed after the first, erm, collapse. Turn the money tap back on and hey presto, everyone's borrowing. Devalutation doesn't happen, as hussyvoice said, because the interest payable is on the $1 billion that is created, not on the $10 billion that it generates. Granted still doomed to a periodic devaluation, but always recouped in the next round of boom. I agree, we all pay for those who create something out of nothing as the "cost" of creating something out of nothing has to be clawed back somewhere :blink:.

Funnily enough I have very little choice in the matter as the entire country is completely reliant on money and to that extent so am I. The true cost isn't worth it for some and until that becomes the norm/majority, the country and the economy will keep cycling on and the grown ups will still believe that individual money and success, with a liberal lashing of bludger bashing, are the measure of the "man". Til then I'll spend what I have to spend to maintain a normal life and with any luck my only debt will remain the mortgage. Oddly enough the Spanish, in some regions, are time banking and the economists are dancing up and down because it doesn't generate any wealth for the wider economy. Go figure. Rock meets hard place, best to just cut to the chase and bin the financial system and evolve good and proper.

[husaberg]

17% last time I looked.

Nah its far greater than that i stand by ten times it would be interesting to google it its interesting just how intertwined just a few families are in the investment world a dew names always crop up again and again.

I can't remember where but my understanding is 50% of the worlds wealth has been acumulated by 5% of the population and the figure is rising faster every "recession" i quote recession cause how come is it we are in a global recession yet the price of basic commodities are rising yet the actual producers of those commodies are being paid less on account of the recession.

[mashman]

Wrong. Again. Certainly it's often possible to convince some sucker to pay you more for something that you paid for yourself. But the more usual way to make a profit, (notice that M word there?) is to add value to a product and THEN sell it for more than you paid for it. Same deal as above: you need to convince the client he's getting something that's worth his hard earned.

Nothing, nothing that's worth anything at all is ever plucked out of thin air. You can assume that if some fashion house gives some catwalk tart a free skivvy it's because they'll benefit from it by more than the face value of the gift. The soup doesn't instantly materialise just because the homeless are a tad peckish innit? Some bastard paid for it didn't he?

TANSTFL.

It happens on trademe all the time. I disagree. That's the way the "market" works. How do you explain non-profit organisations?. If you make (that M word?) a profit, then you are making money out of nothing, irrespective of perceived value, it's still money for nothing.

And yet whoever receives the, ok don't get freaked out by the word, but whoever receives the FREEBIE, gets it for nothing. The initial cost is irrelevant as the good/service/whatever has cost someone nothing. So nothing can be worth nothing.

[mashman]

Nah its far greater than that i stand by ten times it would be interesting to google it its interesting just how intertwined just a few families are in the investment world a dew names always crop up again and again.

I can't remember where but my understanding is 50% of the worlds wealth has been acumulated by 5% of the population and the figure is rising faster every "recession" i quote recession cause how come is it we are in a global recession yet the price of basic commodities are rising yet the actual producers of those commodies are being paid less on account of the recession.

here ya go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_requirement)

[Ocean1]

Nah its far greater than that i stand by ten times it would be interesting to google it its interesting just how intertwined just a few families are in the investment world a dew names always crop up again and again.

Don't know, shouldn't take much to find out.

[husaberg]

here ya go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_requirement)


here is the requirement for the money a run of the mill bank can lend to. As i mentioned around 10 times what they actually have capital to cover.
be a great business to be in write yourself IOU's and just collect money every couple of weeks and if they don't pay eaay, repossess (the asset you lent against or to buy)the money (you never had) on.
In hindsight once the Bank has the deed to say a property i guess they can then lend out ten times more that as well its a great scheme if you ask me

http:///en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Requirement

[Ocean1]

It happens on trademe all the time. I disagree. That's the way the "market" works. How do you explain non-profit organisations?. If you make (that M word?) a profit, then you are making money out of nothing, irrespective of perceived value, it's still money for nothing.

Any "market" that bases it's income on zero added value lasts only until the suckers realised they've been ripped off. As for the non-profit-organisations: all that shit the they deal in just magically materialises does it? Nobody had to expend effort to make it available to them?

And quite to the contrary, if I'm making a profit then I'm generating value that wasn't there before. By definition I've MADE it. I know it's a big step for someone who'd like to think he doesn't have to actually add any value himself in order to live the happy life, but it's nonetheless the way the real world works. Deal with it.


And yet whoever receives the, ok don't get freaked out by the word, but whoever receives the FREEBIE, gets it for nothing. The initial cost is irrelevant as the good/service/whatever has cost someone nothing. So nothing can be worth nothing.

Nope, it's drivel, can't work it out, you'll have to use proper queens english, dude.

[mashman]

In hindsight once the Bank has the deed to say a property i guess they can then lend out ten times more that as well its a great scheme if you ask me

which the new "owner" can then lend out 10 times, then the new "owner" after that etc... and then we have a property bubble, just turn off the money supply and pop, we spend the next 5 years working out who really has responsibility for the debt... investors get nervous, country's go broke and thems who cut the money supply say that they won't lend any more until people sort their shit out, banks start to collapse, all sorts of ridiculous rules for borrowing suddenly appear from nowhere and governments around the world are held to financial ransom and are forced to implement measures that will ultimately divide the population and leave many suffering, whilst thems at the top put their property deeds in their pockets... but I want the world too, I just don't have enough cash to buy it.

[mashman]

Any "market" that bases it's income on zero added value lasts only until the suckers realised they've been ripped off. As for the non-profit-organisations: all that shit the they deal in just magically materialises does it? Nobody had to expend effort to make it available to them?

And quite to the contrary, if I'm making a profit then I'm generating value that wasn't there before. By definition I've MADE it. I know it's a big step for someone who'd like to think he doesn't have to actually add any value himself in order to live the happy life, but it's nonetheless the way the real world works. Deal with it.

Nope, it's drivel, can't work it out, you'll have to use proper queens english, dude.

Yes I realise that we need breathing beings before anything happens, but I was taking that as a given and not a point of contention... only a bloody infant backed into a corner would drag that out and use it as an argument. Still though, nothing happens without the money being generated from nothing.

If we're going to split hairs... no you haven't made it. An entire string of events has to happen before your good can be purchased. You may have made the product, but the extra you make is still money for nothing... unless of course you're only covering your hourly rate. The value add has been afforded to you by the market. I deal with it every day and I add value to a company who sells my services for vastly more than I get paid... but the market decides that value. There ya go telling me what I do and don't do, what my motivations are and then slighted for the amount of money I make for a company where you really don't have a clue. Impressive.

It's been covered.

[Ocean1]

If we're going to split hairs... no you haven't made it. An entire string of events has to happen before your good can be purchased. You may have made the product, but the extra you make is still money for nothing... unless of course you're only covering your hourly rate. The value add has been afforded to you by the market. I deal with it every day and I add value to a company who sells my services for vastly more than I get paid... but the market decides that value. There ya go telling me what I do and don't do, what my motivations are and then slighted for the amount of money I make for a company where you really don't have a clue. Impressive.

It's been covered.

Afforded to me by the market? So, the market's happy paying me more for my services/goods than I paid for them in spite of the fact that I've added no value?

I give up.

[mashman]

Afforded to me by the market? So, the market's happy paying me more for my services/goods than I paid for them in spite of the fact that I've added no value?

I give up.

Absolutely. If the market decides that your services/goods are worth $5 more than they cost you to produce, then it's the market that allows you to have $5. If, all of a sudden, uncle joe sweinbergersmithtardson decides that your product rules and you start receiving $10 profit, then the market has again decided how much your services/goods are worth as you have done absolutely nothing different in regards to the production of your product. I find it amusing that you refuse to acknowledge that and instead declare that you and you alone have added value to the product.

[Akzle]

uhh. guys.

what about welfare support and drug testing?

[husaberg]

uhh. guys.

what about welfare support and drug testing?


Well in my profession (for which i pay tax) i am required to be Drug tested i am fine with that it its part of the deal to ensure safety etc
If i refused or failed i would expect to lose my job. I am ok with that i have nothing to hide.


Therefor its only fair in my opinion that in order to receive the benefit (which is in part subsidised by tax taken from from my income)
That the beneficiaries if need be are required to do the same.

[mashman]

uhh. guys.

what about welfare support and drug testing?

no more discussing the foreplay huh. I see it as a pointless waste of time and money and putting people who are already in a shitty position even further into a shitty position... and all because a bunch of cunts, jealously, demand that these people should take any shitty job they're given and paid according to their station. Leave them the fuck alone.

I will not stop taking drugs, no that I have for a long time, but even if I know that I could be drug tested at any time I won't go out of my way to provide a clean test. If this costs me my job and my employer doesn't accept my word that I am straight at work and it's a residual result from the night or couple of days before, then fuck it, I wouldn't want to work for anyone that would use such a pathetic excuse. Mind you it isn't like my job will kill anyone and even at that, I won't drink or drug at work even though I would still class myself as safe to do the job (unless I really really wasn't).

[sidecar bob]

Fuck me, 38 pages, it sure proves the effectiveness of retarded vision goggles.:yawn:

[mashman]

Fuck me, 38 pages, it sure proves the effectiveness of retarded vision goggles.:yawn:

Aaaaaaand 46 on gay marriage... it sure proves that people believe that their perception of "worth" and "value" think they are a cut above, whereas they're really just the cunt above. The thread has been priceless... so many fucktards baying for the bludgers to suffer even though it'll cost the country more money and it'll make even more suffer.

I'd hate to be a gay bludger.

[scumdog]

I'd hate to be a gay bludger.

You aren't???:eek5:

[sidecar bob]

I wouldnt have a clue what Mash & his retarded chums are on about, because they are on my ignore list, but like I said about 35 pages ago, stoners have just gotta convince others of the validity of their point of view at any cost.
Hey mash, if you'd spent the last three weeks digging a hole in the back yard instead of guarding this thread, at least you would have a hole now, which could potentially actually have some kind of use.
I'll bet now that the last ever post in this thread goes "you can not read this post, because the user is on your ignore list"
Because stoners just have got to have the last word.

[short-circuit]

I wouldnt have a clue what Mash & his retarded chums are on about, because they are on my ignore list, but like I said about 35 pages ago, stoners have just gotta convince others of the validity of their point of view at any cost.
Hey mash, if you'd spent the last three weeks digging a hole in the back yard instead of guarding this thread, at least you would have a hole now, which could potentially actually have some kind of use.
I'll bet now that the last ever post in this thread goes "you can not read this post, because the user is on your ignore list"
Because stoners just have got to have the last word.

What's the point of this post?

Firstly, if you don't support this policy you're a stoner.
Secondly, if you are a stoner your argument must be shite (ad hominem).
And thirdly, I'm not listening to anyone with an opposing point of view - you're on my ignore list.


.....If you only wanna play with yourself while online you should try internet pr0n

[Akzle]

Fuck me, 38 pages, it sure proves the effectiveness of retarded vision goggles.:yawn:
i had an awesome reponse to this. evaporated into the inter-aether-net. it boiled down to this : a) sidecar bob is a dick, and will read this, because even though it says "this post has been hidden because you are ignoring this user" he will click "show pot" just to make sure we're talking baout him. and b) no. this is the adversarial position at play. whites scared of blacks and poor folk. gays scared of breeders, employees scared of beneficiaries etc etc etc. this occurs so the affluent can keep going to the bank.

if you'd spent the last three weeks digging a hole in the back yard instead of guarding this thread, at least you would have a hole now, which could potentially actually have some kind of use.

i did!:

[mashman]

You aren't???:eek5:

Time, place and price sweetheart.

[mashman]

I wouldnt have a clue what Mash & his retarded chums are on about, because they are on my ignore list, but like I said about 35 pages ago, stoners have just gotta convince others of the validity of their point of view at any cost.
Hey mash, if you'd spent the last three weeks digging a hole in the back yard instead of guarding this thread, at least you would have a hole now, which could potentially actually have some kind of use.
I'll bet now that the last ever post in this thread goes "you can not read this post, because the user is on your ignore list"
Because stoners just have got to have the last word.

Splitting hairs, you did say 38 pages... but that's ok, let's put it down to flashback. :killingme and you are not trying to convince anyone of your point of view by highlighting that someone else's point of view has only been sprayed across pages of an internet forum because they are stoned... if not, I would be agreeing with you :killingme... you are full of the genius.
Hey sidecar boob, if you'd spent the last 30 second digging a hole instead of responding to this thread, at least you would have had a hole by now, which could potentially actually have some kind of use.
I ain't a stoner. My excuse for having the last word is that those who are "fighting" their corner have absolutely no rhyme, reason or logic to their argument. Dat makes me laugh lots and I must give you thanks for that. You ain't called sheeple for no reason son. You get to a point and then you fall apart instead of "defending" your point of view with logic/reason... so you hide behind all that you know instead of using that thing inside of your skull to either change your mind or offer an alternative that could potentially change someone else's... what's worse is that you let a stereotype (irrespective of how incorrect it is) cloud your judgement. Then you'll say that you were only trolling to stop yourself from looking like a dick where in all honesty that boat has well and truly sailed. You are highly entertaining though.



you can not read this post, because the user is on your ignore list

[scissorhands]

I wouldnt have a clue what Mash & his retarded chums are on about, because they are on my ignore list, but like I said about 35 pages ago, stoners have just gotta convince others of the validity of their point of view at any cost.


So your not willing to listen to the views of those AFFECTED PERSONS whom this thread, is all about?
Maybe therein lies the problem with the unemployed, drug use and benefits?
Has anyone really listened to those round pegs as they get jammed screaming into square holes?
I hear: "the system is antagonistic to me, I am programmed differently, please provide me with a reasonable and sensible alternative to what works for you"

Autism is rising RAPIDLY. Only 16% of those with a formal diagnosis of autism, are in full time employment.

Make provision within society for different others and you wont have to pay for them anymore. I had a Russian rocket scientist mate who couldnt get a job in NZ, yet he was a genius. Got his green card and he was gone. NZ didnt deserve him

Who are the fucken retards here?:oi-grr:

[Akzle]

Who are the fucken retards here?:oi-grr:

well... FJ is mos. def. one, i'd say bob is another contender.

[sidecar bob]

So your not willing to listen to the views of those AFFECTED PERSONS whom this thread, is all about?
Maybe therein lies the problem with the unemployed, drug use and benefits?
Has anyone really listened to those round pegs as they get jammed screaming into square holes?
I hear: "the system is antagonistic to me, I am programmed differently, please provide me with a reasonable and sensible alternative to what works for you"

Autism is rising RAPIDLY. Only 16% of those with a formal diagnosis of autism, are in full time employment.

Make provision within society for different others and you wont have to pay for them anymore. I had a Russian rocket scientist mate who couldnt get a job in NZ, yet he was a genius. Got his green card and he was gone. NZ didnt deserve him

Who are the fucken retards here?:oi-grr:

Who are the retards?? maybe the ones that suggest a birth defect & a lifestyle choice are somehow comparable. Seriously, W.T.F dude?
I suppose you feel aggrieved that people in wheelchairs get special parking places too?
If thats not retardation. . . .
See ya.

[avgas]

So to drag this back on topic.
What arguments do people have for or against being drug tested to receive a payment that they did not earn?

[caseye]

Well, as I'm currently unemployed but not receiving any govt assistance due to the fact that my wife and I are married have raised 3 kids to adulthood and she earns a paltry 30 something thou per year after working her ass off for many years in her chosen field, I feel qualified to say.
If it's good enough for me to have to undergo drug or any other sort of test in order to be employable.
Then it has to be good enough for unemployed who DO GET a benefit for whatever reason to undergo the same test. A single fail should be enough to stop their benefit, not 1, a warning then a second and only then a benefit cut of 50%.
Pandering is what we are doing, stop it the first time they fail.
But, if they don't fail and if they make the effort to continue looking for and finally finding employment as I will again, then perhaps they should have their circumstance looked into further, maybe we could increase the size of the state house they're in, give them extra grocery vouchers so their kids do eat OK.
We are not doing some of what we do well enough.
Rules should be for all, not specific groups however that group is made up.
We all fail if we don't all go forward, we used to, there were no hand outs for doing nothing,there we're no 4th generations in the same state house, there was enough work that anyone who wanted to work , could and pretty much all did.
Blaming someone, anything, the govt doesn't cut it.
Winston wants work for the dole, me to, I'd do it if it was there to be done, but it isn't, why? it would stop so many other peoples jobs (govt ones of course)dead in their tracks.

[Akzle]

So to drag this back on topic.
What arguments do people have for or against being drug tested to receive a payment that they did not earn?

bahahahaha. go check out pages 1 through about 3. the rest is all BS.:yes:

[caseye]

bahahahaha. go check out pages 1 through about 3. the rest is all BS.:yes:

Come on there AkZ, try harder,put your bloody neck on the line and say something constructive,k OK at least what you think might be,then sit back and as usual around here let the unpickers have their go.
I for one, would like to see where you are really coming from.

[Akzle]

Come on there AkZ, try harder,put your bloody neck on the line and say something constructive,k OK at least what you think might be,then sit back and as usual around here let the unpickers have their go.
I for one, would like to see where you are really coming from.

i forget what the question is.
i'm pretty sure i've contributed my neck through these near-40 pages.
i'm coming from northland.

i'll summarise again.

i think, since politicians get the greatest "benefits" from taxees that they should be drug tested first.

i think that beneficiaries who get kicked off a benefit will end up robbing you moaning white cunts to get their $$

i think it's an easy way to get people off the benefit (same as this "arrest warrant=no benefit" thing going through) thereby getting nearer to balancing the books (for now) and turning the volume down on white-cunts-moaning. (erstwhile keeping their bank accounts a-float)

i think the money spent on the testing could be better spent (say, on keeping the "kiwi"rail boys (or the smelters, or the coal-miners etc) employed.

i think there actually ARE NOT ENOUGH JOBS. and that government hasn't done shit to help that.

i think all drugs should be legal. (thereby eliminating the "need" to test, and freeing up a stack of prison space, a saving a fat fucking stack on policy enforcement costs.)

any other questions?

[scumdog]

i forget what the question is.
i'm pretty sure i've contributed my neck through these near-40 pages.
i'm coming from northland.

i'll summarise again.

i think, since politicians get the greatest "benefits" from taxees that they should be drug tested first.

i think that beneficiaries who get kicked off a benefit will end up robbing you moaning white cunts to get their $$

i think it's an easy way to get people off the benefit (same as this "arrest warrant=no benefit" thing going through) thereby getting nearer to balancing the books (for now) and turning the volume down on white-cunts-moaning. (erstwhile keeping their bank accounts a-float)

i think the money spent on the testing could be better spent (say, on keeping the "kiwi"rail boys (or the smelters, or the coal-miners etc) employed.

i think there actually ARE NOT ENOUGH JOBS. and that government hasn't done shit to help that.

i think all drugs should be legal. (thereby eliminating the "need" to test, and freeing up a stack of prison space, a saving a fat fucking stack on policy enforcement costs.)

any other questions?

Yes.
Where is this utopean society such as you dream of??:eek5:

Not NZ that's for sure.:oi-grr:

But then you do have different 'standards'...:shifty:

Me? - I'm ecstatic, love it as it is.

[avgas]

i forget what the question is.
So just to clear it up...
You don't believe beneficiaries should be drug tested.
......on the basis that no one should be drug tested. Because drugs would be legal.
Correct?

[caseye]

Interesting, OK I'll give you almost all of those points as being if not completely sensible at least possible.
I don't disagree that any money spent on punishment would quite possibly be better spent making sure that there is work for those who need/want it.
not sure and have personal experience that makes me cringe at the thought of making all drugs legal(if not, then at least not jailable)
I'd listen to serious argument along these lines but, tell me, if anyone who is unemployed and wants to work has to undergo a test of any sort to become employed is there any reason why , anyone who is being paid a benefit of any sort should not also have to undergo that test and should not then be subject to some sort of disincentive if they fail.
I can understand and fully agree that taking something from them, that they WRONGLY, think is their right to have ( and herein lies the problem) will make them more moronic and criminally inclined towards those who work and try to make their families lives better.
But surely, at some point we HAVE to treat everyone in this country of "ours," THE SAME and if that means breaking a mindset that is wrong then that is what we must do despite the immediate and unsavory prospect that will follow.
We cannot continue down a path of divided rights and perceived wrongs without cracking a few heads for the greater good. Or can we???? Thoughts.

[Akzle]

Yes.
Where is this utopean society such as you dream of??:eek5:
...But then you do have different 'standards'...:shifty:

uhhh. it seems to start and stop at my gate :D

Me? - I'm ecstatic, love it as it is.
yes. because you are a small person. you enjoy having "authority" over other people, for whatever reason. come the armageddon, you'll be the first to go hungry. failing that, you'll be first against the wall.

[Akzle]

So just to clear it up...
You don't believe beneficiaries should be drug tested.
......on the basis that no one should be drug tested. Because drugs would be legal.
Correct?
yeah. i'll go with that.
...although dropping THAT into the current system would be fucking hilarious, i think the whole system needs a purty-up, then it wouldn't pose any problem.

...if anyone who is unemployed and wants to work has to undergo a test of any sort to become employed is there any reason why , anyone who is being paid a benefit of any sort should not also have to undergo that test
...I can understand and fully agree that taking something from them, that they WRONGLY, think is their right to have ( and herein lies the problem) will make them more moronic and criminally inclined towards those who work
...We cannot continue down a path of divided rights and perceived wrongs without cracking a few heads for the greater good.<- Or can we????

1) i can see the sense there, but i think the largest problems caused by drugs, are caused by their status as "illegal". secondly, if someone fails to gain employment BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN DUMB ASS (ie failing drugs test), they have a 10 week stand down from the benefit. i think this is fairly loosely enforced, but the system IS there already.
2) actually, according to the UN, social security IS a right. for everyone. and since you (presumably) voted for the government, you've agreed to those conditions.
3) you're quite right, but you also prove yourself wrong, in that you present an "us and them" mentality.
this is great. it keeps you scared and under control. and means they CAN KEEP GOING TO THE BANK. this is the bottom line, in all cases. money-money-money (*cabaret YT)
"the greater good" argument is null and void.
i have the cure for cancer. i'll give it to you if you kill 10, 000 smiling pretty white kids.
greater good uh?

there DOES need to be a mentality shift. the debt-greed-money system needs to be abandoned, capitalism/commercialism/consumerism are all BS. and while you're all arguing about shit. they're going to the bank...

[scumdog]

yes. because you are a small person. you enjoy having "authority" over other people, for whatever reason. come the armageddon, you'll be the first to go hungry. failing that, you'll be first against the wall.

:laugh::lol::rofl:...bloody near blew a mouthful of very expensive bourbon all over the key-board when I read that, only just stopped laughing now, sheesh, you might have warned me!!

[short-circuit]

yes. because you are a small person. you enjoy having "authority" over other people, for whatever reason. come the armageddon, you'll be the first to go hungry. failing that, you'll be first against the wall.

He's like Darryl Keerigan from the Castle...If you've got fuck all brains or imagination you'll be quite easily pleased

[caseye]

Ah, will you two quit it, now I'm nearly losing me bourbon, hummmm bourbon, coke,check, bourbon, check. Back soon!


Na Akz, I might've said words that indicate a them and us, but I'd put that down to social conditioning more than an actual ideal.
I'm known for being a bit hard nosed when it comes to any minority that aren't pulling their collective weight, won't deny that, but have mates from all parts of this big wide world of ours, many of them from here, many of those browner than me.
Funny thing is all of my mates work and pay our gubbermint their pittance, guess that makes us all ineligible to comment on unemployed lay abouts who actively do nothing more than they have to to maintain their present lifestyle.

[short-circuit]

Ah, will you two quit it, now I'm nearly losing me bourbon, hummmm bourbon, coke,check, bourbon, check. Back soon!


Na Akz, I might've said words that indicate a them and us, but I'd put that down to social conditioning more than an actual ideal.
I'm known for being a bit hard nosed when it comes to any minority that aren't pulling their collective weight, won't deny that, but have mates from all parts of this big wide world of ours, many of them from here, many of those browner than me.
Funny thing is all of my mates work and pay our gubbermint their pittance, guess that makes us all ineligible to comment on unemployed lay abouts who actively do nothing more than they have to to maintain their present lifestyle.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_benefits

New Zealand

Main article: Social welfare in New Zealand

In New Zealand, the Unemployment Benefit provides income support for people who are looking for work or training for work. It is one of a number of benefits administered by Work and Income, a service of the Ministry of Social Development.

To get this benefit, a person must meet the conditions and obligations specified in section 88A to 123D Social Security Act 1964. These conditions and obligations cover things such as age, residency status, and availability to work.[21]

The amount that is paid depends on things such as the person's age, income, marital status and whether they have children. It is adjusted annually on 1 April and in response to changes in legislature. Some examples of the maximum after tax weekly rate at 1 April 2011 are:
$167.83 for a single person aged 20–24 years without children
$288.47 for a sole parent
$335.66 for a married, de-facto or civil union couple with or without children ($167.83 each).[22]

More information about this benefit and the amounts paid are the Work and Income website.[23]

External links
Work and Income web-site
Social Security Act 1964



Yeah...what a "lifestyle"

[scumdog]

Yeah...what a "lifestyle"

And some still have it by choice.:wacko:

[short-circuit]

And some still have it by choice.:wacko:

What 6.8% of the population and growing by the day?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10825796

Edit: that link is August - we've probably cracked 7% :woohoo:

[caseye]

Yep, when you add up the $20, oh no sorry $40.00 for the lawn mower man, the weekly accomodation allowance, the kids pay outs and all the other nice things that our govt gives out then it IS A Lifestyle choice, one which many have made a career out of keeping.
My comment about 4 generations of state (same house, different generations of same family! occupants) house occupancy is not over stated or something I have no knowledge of and part of that knowledge goes back a good 30 years.
It is this sort of ingrained and these days inbreed "I'm owed it" attitudes that I am absolutely against.
They have no more right to that house than I do to a penthouse suite in the Hilton, yet they get it day in and day out.
Why? mostly because it's easier to say yes than have a problem, this has to stop.
How do we level the field? more taxes? pay more out in benefits?
Stop benefits and return to a central agency that pays out on circumstance and makes certain that the recipients know! it's a loan, until they begin earning again.
I don't have all the answers, who the hell does.
But this country is fast approaching the time when we have to look in the mirror and come to terms with what we've created and the look of our own future.
One things for certain, fixing it is going to hurt, some more than others.

[Ocean1]

And some still have it by choice.:wacko:

I learned a new word today: Ineptocracy: A system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

I thought: Scummy will like that!

I'd signeaturise it, but I don't think it'll fit...

[short-circuit]

I learned a new word today: Ineptocracy: A system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

I thought: Scummy will like that!


He might if he or Darryl Kerrigan could work out what that meant

[mashman]

Does a drugs test stop accidents from happening? No.
Do people who don't take drugs have accidents? Yes.
Once you have taken a drugs test, what is to stop you from immediately taking drugs? Nothing.
Is it wise to push people into a position where they may decide that criminal behaviour is their only avenue to get money? No, people could get hurt.
If the status quo is 10k per year and you do push people in to crime they're gonna cost you 90k per year in prison costs, let alone police costs, court costs and other associated costs. Sounds like a false economy to me.
We're talking about a few thousand people out of millions. They aren't exactly rolling in $$$ yet you're "we're" advocating removing the little $$$ that they have used a drug recently.
There's a hundred thousand people or so that are looking for jobs that want a job. Yet we're trying to force single parents, teenagers and other assorted beneficiaries into work that they clearly don't want or feel that it'll cost more to take the job than it will to stay on the benefit. Surely you'd rather that those who want to work take the positions that are available? There aren't enough jobs.
Essentially it's a witch hunt. Left to its current devices, likely a a zero sum game. Under the "new' legislation it could go either way, it may save the 4 or 5 million that the govt claim, but there will be human cost. why put people who are already likely under stress under even more stress? and all to catch a tiny percentage of those who are career beneficiaries. It's disappointing that so many people would rather go chasing after the idiots because they are spending "their" money (fuckin hilarious) on something that they do not approve of... irrespective of the probable human cost. Actually, it isn't disappointing, it's fucking pathetic that people (loose term for bitter hitlers) swallow and support such stupid stupid policy under the guise of giving a tiny tiny tiny percentage of people the learn and to hell with the collateral damage. Dress it up all you like, but you are exacting revenge!

[Akzle]

[COLOR="#139922"]...
3) you're quite right, but you also prove yourself wrong, in that you present an "us and them" mentality.


...I might've said words that indicate a them and us, but I'd put that down to social conditioning more than an actual ideal.

"you present" ≠ i believe you hold it as an ideal


Yep, when you add up the $20, oh no sorry $40.00 for the lawn mower man, ...
It is this sort of ingrained and these days inbreed "I'm owed it" attitudes that I am absolutely against....
I don't have all the answers, who the hell does....
One things for certain, fixing it is going to hurt, some more than others.
i think it is a lifestyle for the breeders. but if you don't have a vagina, WINZ is decidedly fucking useless.
the people who have their lawns mowed, hair cut, gutters cleaned etc are not unemployed, they're invalid. and thus you, as a society have an obligation to look after them. innit?
who ha the answers? me. i've got lots of em. Bob for PM. i'll sort this, and all other shit, out in a hurry.

I learned a new word today: Ineptocracy
:
The CSIRO has discovered the heaviest element yet known to science. The
new element is Governmentium (Gv).
It has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons and 198
assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312
particles are held together by forces called morons, which are
surrounded by vast quantities of lefton-like particles called peons.

Since Governmentium has no electrons or protons, it is inert. However,
it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it
comes into contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction
normally taking less than a second to take from four days to four years
to complete.
Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2- 6 years. It does not decay
but instead undergoes a reorganisation in which a portion of the
assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact,
Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each
reorganisation will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming
isodopes.
This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe
that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical
concentration.
This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.
When catalysed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an
element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has
half as many peons but twice as many morons. All of the money is
consumed in the exchange, and no other byproducts are produced.

[avgas]

The CSIRO has discovered.....
They also discovered how to make a viable hybrid car for Holden.....in 3 generations.......the last one being the 1990's.
They also discovered various ways to save marine life. None of which were implemented.

Turns out it wasn't a $ as the various viruses they have created in the last 40 years.
Fucking joke.

i'm sorry I had to vent - did not mean to derail the thread again. Don't even get me started with the NZ government research departments.

[avgas]

Does a drugs test stop accidents from happening?
According to results, yes.

I will see if I can bring the NZ stats up - but from my dealings in the engineering industries drugs tests generally halve the number of workplace accidents. While I can't claim that this is due to the drugs, so simply a behavior changes. You generally can't ignore stats like that. That is very comparative to motorcycle helmet / seatbelt surveys done was back in the 60's.
In the meantime here is a report done by some fancy people at Princeton.
http://www.princeton.edu/~amas/papers/246.full.pdf

While i think its good to do drug testing, I can see the flaws in the test process. The number one being if you smoke a joint, your fucked for 28 days......where as all the executives can smoke P on Friday and be clean on Monday.

As for drug testing beneficiaries. I don't see why not if they need to be clean to be employable. I certainly wouldn't hire someone who didn't inform me they had a drug problem. Its the same as drinking problem as far as I am concerned. Neither makes the workplace a safe environment.
However if they informed me straight up from the start I think there is a way forward. But that is a catch 22.

[short-circuit]

According to results, yes.

I will see if I can bring the NZ stats up - but from my dealings in the engineering industries drugs tests generally halve the number of workplace accidents. While I can't claim that this is due to the drugs, so simply a behavior changes. You generally can't ignore stats like that. That is very comparative to motorcycle helmet / seatbelt surveys done was back in the 60's.
In the meantime here is a report done by some fancy people at Princeton.
http://www.princeton.edu/~amas/papers/246.full.pdf

While i think its good to do drug testing, I can see the flaws in the test process. The number one being if you smoke a joint, your fucked for 28 days......where as all the executives can smoke P on Friday and be clean on Monday.

As for drug testing beneficiaries. I don't see why not if they need to be clean to be employable. I certainly wouldn't hire someone who didn't inform me they had a drug problem. Its the same as drinking problem as far as I am concerned. Neither makes the workplace a safe environment.
However if they informed me straight up from the start I think there is a way forward. But that is a catch 22.


Yeah but this has nothing to do with 'fitness to work' in NZ's glut of non-existent jobs....It has everything to do with (short-sighted) slashing of social spending.


Even if you want to go down the ludicrous track of employment safety, there are so many scientific issues and legal and human rights considerations.

But again this is a red herring.

[avgas]

Yeah but this has nothing to do with 'fitness to work' in NZ's glut of non-existent jobs....It has everything to do with (short-sighted) slashing of social spending.


Even if you want to go down the ludicrous track of employment safety, there are so many scientific issues and legal and human rights considerations.

But again this is a red herring.
I think you will find that it is more expensive to implement the scheme than the savings made by cutting benefits.
What makes your human rights more prominent than those you work with?
Is your need for drugs stronger than their need for a safe work environment?

I believe that is the call sign of an addiction.

[short-circuit]

I think you will find that it is more expensive to implement the scheme than the savings made by cutting benefits.
What makes your human rights more prominent than those you work with?
Is your need for drugs stronger than their need for a safe work environment?

I believe that is the call sign of an addiction.


Of course it's far more expensive to implement the scheme than the savings made by cutting benefits and that point has been made and I agree - it's a fucking stupid, discriminatory policy.

But about the rest of your post..
What the fuck are you talking about? Not sure how you infer any of the above from what I wrote. I don't use substances of any sort but I would have questions about some of the following:


Definitions around "safety"
Determining what other factors might compromise "safety"
What constitutes a drug and instances of legitimate use
Who gets tested, why, how and what the frequency might be
Possible abuses around such policies
Legal questions such as "innocent until proven guilty" and "reasonable grounds to suspect"
My time vs work time



....Just to name a few.

I mean, my boss might be keen to see if I'm attempting to supply - Should he be entitled to whip out the rubber gloves and perform a rectal cavity search? weeeeeell if it's in the interests of "safety" then of course he should eh?

[scumdog]

I learned a new word today: Ineptocracy: A system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

I thought: Scummy will like that!

I'd signeaturise it, but I don't think it'll fit...

Scummy likes!:woohoo:

Sadly, as you say, the leeches are ovetaking the leeched.:weep:

[husaberg]

I will no doubt get flamed but jeeze.
The field in which i work where we are subject to pre employment, random (and not so random) as well as post incident testing.
The field i work in can be construed as dangerous and life threatening certainly no place for people under the influence of anything.
The industry pays pretty good and is safe if you follow the rules and use common sense.
So i are subject to drug tests (and alcohol), I have no issue with it.

So why should the beneficiaries which are being supported either, in their hunt for employment , sickness. raising of a child or recoveries from an accident etc
have an issue with it. The benefit is not meant to subsidise someones drug habit is it. If they are buying drugs, are there kids going short. Why is there surplus money available to afford what, most people would not consider a necessity.

[Akzle]

According to results, yes.
no.

drugs tests generally halve the number of workplace accidents. While I can't claim that this is due to the drugs,
ahuh.

so simply a behavior changes. You generally can't ignore stats like that.
there has been MASSIVE regulation surrounding OSH BS, and fuckall of it has to do with drugs, or drug testing. only a few decades ago it was pretty much 50-50 if you came home from work, now all these "proper" white folk expect that everyone will come home. pah!

The number one being if you smoke a joint, your fucked for 28 days......where as all the executives can smoke P... corporate types are mostly into heroin, cocaine and valium. it's so chic. it's the poor brown folk in otara who get "goofed" on P. (doesn't matter though because they're not employed) (and meanwhile doctors are handing P/meth out for "mental disorders") and secondarily, if you live right, dope will be out of your system in a few days.

I think you will find that it is more expensive to implement the scheme than the savings made by cutting benefits.
yeah. but that's okay, because they'll be making a lot of money off these asset sales :sweatdrop

[mashman]

I will no doubt get flamed but jeeze.
The field in which i work where we are subject to pre employment, random (and not so random) as well as post incident testing.
The field i work in can be construed as dangerous and life threatening certainly no place for people under the influence of anything.
The industry pays pretty good and is safe if you follow the rules and use common sense.
So i are subject to drug tests (and alcohol), I have no issue with it.

So why should the beneficiaries which are being supported either, in their hunt for employment , sickness. raising of a child or recoveries from an accident etc
have an issue with it. The benefit is not meant to subsidise someones drug habit is it. If they are buying drugs, are there kids going short. Why is there surplus money available to afford what, most people would not consider a necessity.

Ahhhh ye olde, because it happens to me it should happen to everyone... especially those who don't work because they can't find a job because they receive a payment that allows them to keep on not working.
I'm more than happy with post incident testing and the subsequent penalties... testing doesn't prevent the incidents that do happen, hell, people who don't take drugs have incidents. It does not necessarily mean that one follows the other.
I agree that one should be straight (sober and drug free) whilst working, as you say that's common sense... but irrespective of testing, some will just carry on and will remain undetected and incident free.
Why should someone who had a smoke the night before a drugs test (unknowingly) lose their job because they are deemed dangerous according to the laws of thermodynamics? Would you class that as common sense?

Why not just give beneficiaries food parcels, a roof over their heads and absolutely no money? What do you think the outcome is going to be? In fact let's take their cars away from them as there is no way in hell that they should be able to afford rego and maintenance. If they have a TV/games console/furniture/expensive clothing/extra pairs of footwear etc... remove it, they shouldn't be able to afford that stuff at all... in fact fuck it, take the house away from them too, give them a container to live in with 2 hours of electricity per day.

The downsides to penny pinching, which in the grand scale of things this most definitely is, is the harm that it will do to people who may well forgo a few "luxuries" to save just enough to have that little bit of fun that makes life bearable.... I know, I know, they shouldn't be having fun at all, they should be at work all day and if they can't make ends meet, they should be doing 2+ jobs... fuck this working for family's shit, if they aren't getting paid enough, they should take it up with their employer. Why should any honest decent citizen care because these people are the dregs of society, not a single human being amongst the lot of them... and it's tough shit if you lose your job and can't get another one, you should have taken out employment insurance etc... ra ra ra ra ra ra and on and on for decade after decade. Sorry, when we start kicking those at the bottom of the pile, the vast majority of whom are trying to find work, I draw the line.

Meanwhile on topic, drug testing them is probably going to cost more than it saves. The telly mentions $6.5 million of savings after setup and monitoring etc... If 100 of the thousands that are going to be kicked end up in jail, instead of spending $1 million to support these people, we're going to be spending $9 million supporting these people. Kinda make a mockery of the whole "scheme" given the objective of the policy is to save money. The status quo will do less damage in the short and long term... and I fail to see any benefit in pre drugs testing people full stop. It's predicting the future on the basis that drugs = incidents, no ifs ands or buts. Epic fail... in my humble opinion.

[Madness]

Fuck, 41 pages. When do we get to test some drugs?

[Akzle]

Fuck, 41 pages. When do we get to test some drugs?

i have been. since page 2. :D so far i think the best for my typing is dak. although it takes ten times longer as i read it a dozen times to make sure it makes as much sense in my head as on the page, so uses more battery, which could be argued is bad for the planet.


what's going to be even funnier, is when all these people get drug tested, and one way or another, stay on the benefit. (because it's impossible to manipulate the social welfare system innit.)

then what, whitey, then what?
maybe y'all have to start bagging on the jews. or maoris.:innocent:

[husaberg]

I will no doubt get flamed but jeeze.
The field in which i work where we are subject to pre employment, random (and not so random) as well as post incident testing.
The field i work in can be construed as dangerous and life threatening certainly no place for people under the influence of anything.
The industry pays pretty good and is safe if you follow the rules and use common sense.
So i are subject to drug tests (and alcohol), I have no issue with it.

So why should the beneficiaries which are being supported either, in their hunt for employment , sickness. raising of a child or recoveries from an accident etc
have an issue with it. The benefit is not meant to subsidise someones drug habit is it. If they are buying drugs, are there kids going short. Why is there surplus money available to afford what, most people would not consider a necessity.



Ahhhh ye olde, because it happens to me it should happen to everyone... especially those who don't work because they can't find a job because they receive a payment that allows them to keep on not working.
I'm more than happy with post incident testing and the subsequent penalties... testing doesn't prevent the incidents that do happen, hell, people who don't take drugs have incidents. It does not necessarily mean that one follows the other.
I agree that one should be straight (sober and drug free) whilst working, as you say that's common sense... but irrespective of testing, some will just carry on and will remain undetected and incident free.
Why should someone who had a smoke the night before a drugs test (unknowingly) lose their job because they are deemed dangerous according to the laws of thermodynamics? Would you class that as common sense?

Why not just give beneficiaries food parcels, a roof over their heads and absolutely no money? What do you think the outcome is going to be? In fact let's take their cars away from them as there is no way in hell that they should be able to afford rego and maintenance. If they have a TV/games console/furniture/expensive clothing/extra pairs of footwear etc... remove it, they shouldn't be able to afford that stuff at all... in fact fuck it, take the house away from them too, give them a container to live in with 2 hours of electricity per day.

The downsides to penny pinching, which in the grand scale of things this most definitely is, is the harm that it will do to people who may well forgo a few "luxuries" to save just enough to have that little bit of fun that makes life bearable.... I know, I know, they shouldn't be having fun at all, they should be at work all day and if they can't make ends meet, they should be doing 2+ jobs... fuck this working for family's shit, if they aren't getting paid enough, they should take it up with their employer. Why should any honest decent citizen care because these people are the dregs of society, not a single human being amongst the lot of them... and it's tough shit if you lose your job and can't get another one, you should have taken out employment insurance etc... ra ra ra ra ra ra and on and on for decade after decade. Sorry, when we start kicking those at the bottom of the pile, the vast majority of whom are trying to find work, I draw the line.

Meanwhile on topic, drug testing them is probably going to cost more than it saves. The telly mentions $6.5 million of savings after setup and monitoring etc... If 100 of the thousands that are going to be kicked end up in jail, instead of spending $1 million to support these people, we're going to be spending $9 million supporting these people. Kinda make a mockery of the whole "scheme" given the objective of the policy is to save money. The status quo will do less damage in the short and long term... and I fail to see any benefit in pre drugs testing people full stop. It's predicting the future on the basis that drugs = incidents, no ifs ands or buts. Epic fail... in my humble opinion.

Mashy i realise we are never going to agree, but seeing as for the most part you don't disagree on the first bit we will go on o the second.

I certainly aren't bashing beneficiaries..... far from it take the time to read my post ...shit take the time go on , humour me....
Take a deep breath and exhale if you wish.
But please read my post again. with an open mind.
What i are saying is that i don't feel society as a whole needs to support people, that make a conscious choice, to forgo what the benefits that are supporting them are for, in order to spend the money designed to support them, when they are unable to be, for whatever reason in paid employment.
These benefits designed solely to support them for, whatever reason that may be. But it isn't designed to fuel their need to take illegal drugs.

Lastly it doesn't worry me if the net cost of the testing of beneficiaries costs more than it saves, Why? the message needs to permeate to the very small minority of people that seem to think society needs to fuel there unwillingness to take the money designed to support them and instead choose to spend it on recreational drugs.

The rest of your post smacks of a preconceived notion. it's all smoke and mirrors.
Very few people My self included are beneficiaries bashers.
Just as very small amount of people on the benefit are benefit abusers.

You will note that i have not mentioned pensioners, Why because they have contributed to society and i feel if they want to take recreational drugs they can go for it.

[mashman]

Mashy i realise we are never going to agree, but seeing as for the most part you don't disagree on the first bit we will go on o the second.

I certainly aren't bashing beneficiaries..... far from it take the time to read my post ...shit take the time go on , humour me....
Take a deep breath and exhale if you wish.
But please read my post again. with an open mind.
What i are saying is that i don't feel society as a whole needs to support people, that make a conscious choice, to forgo what the benefits that are supporting them are for, in order to spend the money designed to support them, when they are unable to be, for whatever reason in paid employment.
These benefits designed solely to support them for, whatever reason that may be. But it isn't designed to fuel their need to take illegal drugs.

Lastly it doesn't worry me if the net cost of the testing of beneficiaries costs more than it saves, Why? the message needs to permeate to the very small minority of people that seem to think society needs to fuel there unwillingness to take the money designed to support them and instead choose to spend it on recreational drugs.

The rest of your post smacks of a preconceived notion. it's all smoke and mirrors.
Very few people My self included are beneficiaries bashers.
Just as very small amount of people on the benefit are benefit abusers.

You will note that i have not mentioned pensioners, Why because they have contributed to society and i feel if they want to take recreational drugs they can go for it.

Oi dids read your post... and you thought I was ranting? Oh dear. I also understood where you were coming from, primarily because once upon a time not so long ago I thought pretty similarly. then I realised that the jobs just aren't there. I also realised that prices won't come down and even of the benefit rises in line with inflation, there's no way in hell the inflation of every good/service is going to be covered by benefit rise.

I are saying that I disagree about the purpose of the benefit, definitely more so in this day and age. Whilst once it was support for people, there were always those who chose it as a "lifestyle". I have no issue with this given that there aren't enough jobs, let alone well paying jobs... and if the drug habit of the beneficiary is as all powerful as you seem to portray (internetz be a damn good thing for gaining context :blink:), then the benefit ain't anywhere near enough to sustain that habit. Likely a large part of the benefit is the accommodation allowance and lordy lordy rents keep going up. Perhaps a cap on rent rises eh :shit:. Anyways, the alternative is leaving people to fend for themselves or die. Some may see that as a viable alternative and if that's the case, can you at least wait until I've set my deckchair up to watch the fallout.

The cost concerns me as it will be us that have to pay the price for it, not the politicians, not the banks etc... us. Which will likely start to squeeze more and more out of work. I do not see the point in trying to financially squeeze those who will go out and get money from an alternative source to fund their entertainment... and especially not to reiterate a message that has been known by every man and his dog since the beginning of forever. Why choose now to go after these people given that this has been going on for decades? Telling the beneficiary what they can and can't spend their money on is like fucking for virginity. Ok, the wage that they have been given. I mean money that we have graciously donates to them, or had donated on our behalf. They will always find a way. They are not stupid. They have less to lose. They can and will do anything if you push too hard and then we all pay for it and it will be the fault of our government and its stupid "policy's" is the worst happens... not the beneficiary.

What preconceived notion?
Not saying you're a beneficiary basher, but this policy is not being put in place to encourage people into work, is it? Lapping it up is tantamount to beneficiary bashing... just like watching someone get their head kicked in makes you just as guilty as the person doing the kickin... but that's just one wa of looking at it :innocent:
That means there are more people, clean, honest, eager etc... who are looking for work. Why piss in the wind and try to force those who "won't" be able to get a job to the head of the job line? You spoke of common sense before, I'm struggling to see it.

It isn't just a support mechanism any more... and there is a bigger picture to take into account with hundreds of variables.

I ain't judging you or your post sweety. Just stating my view as opposed to your, don't take it so personally :innocent:.

[avgas]

there has been MASSIVE regulation surrounding OSH BS, and fuckall of it has to do with drugs, or drug testing. only a few decades ago it was pretty much 50-50 if you came home from work, now all these "proper" white folk expect that everyone will come home. pah!
I am going to take your 50/50 with a grain of salt. Unless your talking about the Egyptian Pyramids - death in the world place has been pretty good for last 1000 years. From recall Manapouri only managed to kill off 16 men.
As for the changes saving lives. I am very thankful that they are in place (in some instances)..........and disappointed when they are not enforced and people do die.
I count my lucky stars that common sense prevailed in my father and he handed in his notice with a past employer. He lost some good mates at Pike River. There would have been more deaths there if he waited another month.

Would drugs tests have fixed that? Nah - but mabey (just mabey) they could have busted that arsehole CEO on SOMETHING??!?!?!?! Even if it was a bit of dope.

I work with guys who use drugs, generally never have an issue with them. But then again I have worked with rapists and thieves and never had a problem with them either. I have had problems with problem gamblers, pissheads and drug addicts though.
Seems to bring out the arseholes in people.

[Akzle]

Lastly it doesn't worry me if the net cost of the testing of beneficiaries costs more than it saves, Why? the message needs to permeate to the very small minority of people that seem to think society needs to fuel there unwillingness to take the money designed to support them and instead choose to spend it on recreational drugs.

that's not very sound fiscal policy. and national is all about fiscal policy.
(note that the word "sound" is notably absent from the second strophe...)

but pray, what about the beneficiaries who meet your criteria, BUT GROW THEIR OWN DOPE, thus not spending your precious tax $ on their want for weed...

[husaberg]

Mashy i realise we are never going to agree, but seeing as for the most part you don't disagree on the first bit we will go on o the second.

I certainly aren't bashing beneficiaries..... far from it take the time to read my post ...shit take the time go on , humour me....
Take a deep breath and exhale if you wish.
But please read my post again. with an open mind.
What i are saying is that i don't feel society as a whole needs to support people, that make a conscious choice, to forgo what the benefits that are supporting them are for, in order to spend the money designed to support them, when they are unable to be, for whatever reason in paid employment.
These benefits designed solely to support them for, whatever reason that may be. But it isn't designed to fuel their need to take illegal drugs.

Lastly it doesn't worry me if the net cost of the testing of beneficiaries costs more than it saves, Why? the message needs to permeate to the very small minority of people that seem to think society needs to fuel there unwillingness to take the money designed to support them and instead choose to spend it on recreational drugs.

The rest of your post smacks of a preconceived notion. it's all smoke and mirrors.
Very few people My self included are beneficiaries bashers.
Just as very small amount of people on the benefit are benefit abusers.

You will note that i have not mentioned pensioners, Why because they have contributed to society and i feel if they want to take recreational drugs they can go for it.


Ahhhh ye olde, because it happens to me it should happen to everyone... especially those who don't work because they can't find a job because they receive a payment that allows them to keep on not working.

Why not just give beneficiaries food parcels, a roof over their heads and absolutely no money? What do you think the outcome is going to be? In fact let's take their cars away from them as there is no way in hell that they should be able to afford rego and maintenance. If they have a TV/games console/furniture/expensive clothing/extra pairs of footwear etc... remove it, they shouldn't be able to afford that stuff at all... in fact fuck it, take the house away from them too, give them a container to live in with 2 hours of electricity per day.
Rant one


The downsides to penny pinching, which in the grand scale of things this most definitely is, is the harm that it will do to people who may well forgo a few "luxuries" to save just enough to have that little bit of fun that makes life bearable.... I know, I know, they shouldn't be having fun at all, they should be at work all day and if they can't make ends meet, they should be doing 2+ jobs... fuck this working for family's shit, if they aren't getting paid enough, they should take it up with their employer. Why should any honest decent citizen care because these people are the dregs of society, not a single human being amongst the lot of them... and it's tough shit if you lose your job and can't get another one, you should have taken out employment insurance etc... ra ra ra ra ra ra and on and on for decade after decade. Sorry, when we start kicking those at the bottom of the pile, the vast majority of whom are trying to find work, I draw the line.
rant two



Oi dids read your post... and you thought I was ranting? Oh dear. I also understood where you were coming from,

I are saying that I disagree about the purpose of the benefit, definitely more so in this day and age. Whilst once it was support for people, there were always those who chose it as a "lifestyle". I have no issue with this given that there aren't enough jobs, let alone well paying jobs... and if the drug habit of the beneficiary is as all powerful as you seem to portray (internetz be a damn good thing for gaining context :blink:), then the benefit ain't anywhere near enough to sustain that habit. Likely a large part of the benefit is the accommodation allowance and lordy lordy rents keep going up. Perhaps a cap on rent rises eh :shit:. Anyways, the alternative is leaving people to fend for themselves or die. Some may see that as a viable alternative and if that's the case, can you at least wait until I've set my deckchair up to watch the fallout.


What preconceived notion?
Not saying you're a beneficiary basher, but this policy is not being put in place to encourage people into work, is it? Lapping it up is tantamount to beneficiary bashing... just like watching someone get their head kicked in makes you just as guilty as the person doing the kickin... but that's just one wa of looking at it :innocent:
That means there are more people, clean, honest, eager etc... who are looking for work. Why piss in the wind and try to force those who "won't" be able to get a job to the head of the job line? You spoke of common sense before, I'm struggling to see it.

It isn't just a support mechanism any more... and there is a bigger picture to take into account with hundreds of variables.

I ain't judging you or your post sweety. Just stating my view as opposed to your, don't take it so personally :innocent:

.

Your kidding me right, please show me my rants,while your at it show me where i said, most beneficiaries are drug abusers.

Ps watching someone get there head kicked in doesn't make you as guilty. but failing to help the person getting kicked when your able to stop it certainly doesn't make you that innocent either..........

Actually why bother its going to happen whether you like it or not.



As for the changes saving lives. I am very thankful that they are in place (in some instances)..........and disappointed when they are not enforced and people do die.
I count my lucky stars that common sense prevailed in my father and he handed in his notice with a past employer. He lost some good mates at Pike River. There would have been more deaths there if he waited another month.

Would drugs tests have fixed that? Nah - but mabey (just mabey) they could have busted that arsehole CEO on SOMETHING??!?!?!?! Even if it was a bit of dope.



The staff at Pike River where regularly drug tested as where the office staff. The systematic failure at Pike River mine has little to do with the CEO but it is all to do with systems and money.
Its all to easy to blame Peter when he was the CEO at the time. But remember he had only been CEO for a very short time and under whose instructions was he operating. Everyone involved has to take responsibility for this disaster. Not that they will mind you.Have a look who owned most of Pike the take a look at who owned most of NZ oil and Gas you might be surprised.........Check out the profits for NZ Oil and Gas.
Check out the Way Solid Energy operated after Pike, with the asset's of Pike, the broken promises the deal done with the receivers and how they act now with the Spring Creek Miners.

It should be noted however that NZ Oil and Gas got their money back from the wind up not like the people that couldn't afford it and the the contractors

[mashman]

Rant one
rant two

Your kidding me right, please show me my rants,while your at it show me where i said, most beneficiaries are drug abusers.

Ps watching someone get there head kicked in doesn't make you as guilty. but failing to help the person getting kicked when your able to stop it certainly doesn't make you that innocent either..........

Actually why bother its going to happen whether you like it or not.

Did I say you were ranting? Did I say that you said that most beneficiaries are drug abusers? I do a great line in buckets of sand.

Are you on a power trip? You sure sound like it. They get to spend the money that is given to them on what they decide to spend it on and not what you want them to spend it on, to the point where you're happy to have the rest of the tax payers covering the potential financial fallout... and all because you don't like what they spend their money on? Or does it go deeper than that? Where you once poor and having dragged yourself out of poverty you resent those who don't put in the effort to do the same? Or are you just hateful of those who don't work to the point where you take some perverse pleasure in the govt exacting revenge on your behalf? I'm curious why you'd like to put people under such pressure?

[husaberg]

Did I say you were ranting?


Oi dids read your post... and you thought I was ranting?

Did I say that you said that most beneficiaries are drug abusers? I do a great line in buckets of sand.


.
and if the drug habit of the beneficiary is as all powerful as you seem to portray (internetz be a damn good thing for gaining context :blink:),

I am not the one ranting here read your own posts ......

I say its reasonable to expect beneficiaries to be drug tested.... you leap to some conclusion and start trolling up utter crap like why stop there give them food parcels take away there cars power house etc.


Ahhhh ye olde, because it happens to me it should happen to everyone... especially those who don't work because they can't find a job because they receive a payment that allows them to keep on not working.

Why not just give beneficiaries food parcels, a roof over their heads and absolutely no money? What do you think the outcome is going to be? In fact let's take their cars away from them as there is no way in hell that they should be able to afford rego and maintenance. If they have a TV/games console/furniture/expensive clothing/extra pairs of footwear etc... remove it, they shouldn't be able to afford that stuff at all... in fact fuck it, take the house away from them too, give them a container to live in with 2 hours of electricity per day.

The downsides to penny pinching, which in the grand scale of things this most definitely is, is the harm that it will do to people who may well forgo a few "luxuries" to save just enough to have that little bit of fun that makes life bearable.... I know, I know, they shouldn't be having fun at all, they should be at work all day and if they can't make ends meet, they should be doing 2+ jobs... fuck this working for family's shit, if they aren't getting paid enough, they should take it up with their employer. Why should any honest decent citizen care because these people are the dregs of society, not a single human being amongst the lot of them... and it's tough shit if you lose your job and can't get another one, you should have taken out employment insurance etc... ra ra ra ra ra ra and on and on for decade after decade.




I have only a modicum of sympathy for some people. But only those that are unwilling to help themselves and unwilling to help others. Not all of them are beneficiaries either.
I don't waste my time helping those unwilling to help themselves Just as i are not going to waste any more time in a futile attempt to have a resonable balanced discussion with you.

I had a few people pm me about this thread and they are totally right........I should have listened......
It is however interesting that you think i am on a power trip.. very interesting indeed..

[mashman]

Oi dids read your post... and you thought I was ranting?

The "and you thought I was ranting" was not a pot kettle black, it was in response to you saying


Take a deep breath and exhale if you wish.



I am not the one ranting here read your own posts ......

I say its reasonable to expect beneficiaries to be drug tested.... you leap to some conclusion and start trolling up utter crap like why stop there give them food parcels take away there cars power house etc.

I had a few people pm me about this thread and they are totally right........


:rofl: As I've said in the past, people will read me how they read me. Where you see hysterical rant, I see people fuckin with other people's lives. There are quite serious consequences to removing money from the lives of people who don't have that much to start with and if my concern is read as ranting, then as I say, I can't change your perception on that. To that end I say you're wrong about my "attitude" and my frame of mind when typing my responses... but as you have backup, meh, and if others have said that I must be ranting, or whatever variations of, then they are wrong too... but it's entirely your choice to read me as you will. Is asking for an open mind a 1 way street? or do I have to see things from your perspective to be seen as having an open mind?

[husaberg]

I will no doubt get flamed but jeeze.
The field in which i work where we are subject to pre employment, random (and not so random) as well as post incident testing.
The field i work in can be construed as dangerous and life threatening certainly no place for people under the influence of anything.
The industry pays pretty good and is safe if you follow the rules and use common sense.
So i are subject to drug tests (and alcohol), I have no issue with it.

So why should the beneficiaries which are being supported either, in their hunt for employment , sickness. raising of a child or recoveries from an accident etc
have an issue with it. The benefit is not meant to subsidise someones drug habit is it. If they are buying drugs, are there kids going short. Why is there surplus money available to afford what, most people would not consider a necessity.


The "and you thought I was ranting"


You asked me where i showed you where. yet you still can't see it



As I've said in the past, people will read me how they read me. Where you see hysterical rant,I see people fuckin with other people's lives.


Ahhhh ye olde, because it happens to me it should happen to everyone... especially those who don't work because they can't find a job because they receive a payment that allows them to keep on not working......
Why not just give beneficiaries food parcels, a roof over their heads and absolutely no money? What do you think the outcome is going to be? In fact let's take their cars away from them as there is no way in hell that they should be able to afford rego and maintenance. If they have a TV/games console/furniture/expensive clothing/extra pairs of footwear etc... remove it, they shouldn't be able to afford that stuff at all... in fact fuck it, take the house away from them too, give them a container to live in with 2 hours of electricity per day.

The downsides to penny pinching, which in the grand scale of things this most definitely is, is the harm that it will do to people who may well forgo a few "luxuries" to save just enough to have that little bit of fun that makes life bearable.... I know, I know, they shouldn't be having fun at all, they should be at work all day and if they can't make ends meet, they should be doing 2+ jobs... fuck this working for family's shit, if they aren't getting paid enough, they should take it up with their employer. Why should any honest decent citizen care because these people are the dregs of society, not a single human being amongst the lot of them... and it's tough shit if you lose your job and can't get another one, you should have taken out employment insurance etc... ra ra ra ra ra ra



if others have said that I must be ranting, or whatever variations of, then they are wrong too...
Well here again is your posts Can you not see just a little bit of a rant anywhere?



I had a few people pm me about this thread and they are totally right........I should have listened......

[mashman]

You asked me where i showed you where. yet you still can't see it

Well here again is your posts what do you see

I just highlighted that I thought that you thought I was ranting. I didn't ask you to show me where I was ranting, because I wasn't.

Concern.


I have only a modicum of sympathy for some people. But only those that are unwilling to help themselves and unwilling to help others. Not all of them are beneficiaries either.
I don't waste my time helping those unwilling to help themselves Just as i are not going to waste any more time in a futile attempt to have a resonable balanced discussion with you.

I had a few people pm me about this thread and they are totally right........I should have listened......
It is however interesting that you think i am on a power trip.. very interesting indeed..

I'm with you, to a certain degree, on the sympathy.
I will waste my "time" on those who are unwilling to help themselves (they serve an economic purpose from what I've read)... and by help I mean they only really need money. :rofl:@balanced discussion. I'm being unreasonable and unbalaned? because I have a different point of view?

The power trip was one option. Odd that you single it out? Amazingly, I know this is unheard of on KB, somethings that are posted have a wee hint of troll and I smell a hint on you, but I ain't sure if that's troll or just plain old shit.

[husaberg]

if others have said that I must be ranting, or whatever variations of, then they are wrong too...



I just highlighted that I thought that you thought I was ranting. I didn't ask you to show me where I was ranting, because I wasn't.
Gee really?



I'm being unreasonable and unbalaned? because I have a different point of view?
Where have i said that. I have said you are ranting, then showed you, I don't recall saying unreasonable and unbalanced?
I have however said your replies smack of preconceived notions of what you think people are saying


The power trip was one option. Odd that you single it out? Amazingly, I know this is unheard of on KB, somethings that are posted have a wee hint of troll and I smell a hint on you, but I ain't sure if that's troll or just plain old shit.
You might have explain what this sentence is relating too....

[mashman]

Gee really?

Where have i said that. I have said you are ranting, then showed you, I don't recall saying unreasonable and unbalanced?
I have however said your replies smack of preconceived notions of what you think people are saying

You might have explain what this sentence is relating too....I have gone back in my posts i can find no mention of power trips?

No.


Just as i are not going to waste any more time in a futile attempt to have a resonable balanced discussion with you
No. You said I had a preconceived notion. I asked for clarification and didn't see any... having said that, yes, I get the wrong end of the stick sometimes and rely on those who I have misread to tell me so. Some do, some prefer to roll their eyes.

:rofl: check your previous post re: power trip.

[husaberg]

No.Yes



No. You said I had a preconceived notion. No i said "it was futile trying to have a balanced discussion with you" so none of the words are the same other than 'A"
But the preconcieved notions are in relation to the rants Or as you would say a free exchange of your ideas (in a rant) this was in reply to me saying that the the benefit was not for the purchase of drugs to which you started on

Ahhhh ye olde, because it happens to me it should happen to everyone...
Why not just give beneficiaries food parcels, a roof over their heads and absolutely no money? What do you think the outcome is going to be? In fact let's take their cars away from them as there is no way in hell that they should be able to afford rego and maintenance. If they have a TV/games console/furniture/expensive clothing/extra pairs of footwear etc... remove it, they shouldn't be able to afford that stuff at all... in fact fuck it, take the house away from them too, give them a container to live in with 2 hours of electricity per day.
is the harm that it will do to people who may well forgo a few "luxuries" to save just enough to have that little bit of fun that makes life bearable.... I know, I know, they shouldn't be having fun at all, they should be at work all day and if they can't make ends meet, they should be doing 2+ jobs... fuck this working for family's shit, if they aren't getting paid enough, they should take it up with their employer. Why should any honest decent citizen care because these people are the dregs of society, not a single human being amongst the lot of them... and it's tough shit if you lose your job and can't get another one, you should have taken out employment insurance etc... ra ra ra ra ra ra
To which anyone who didn't know these are your forceful free exchange of ideas, not rants, and could therefor could confuse them as such.:sick:

I asked for clarification and didn't see any... having said that, yes, I get the wrong end of the stick sometimes and rely on those who I have misread to tell me so. Some do, some prefer to roll their eyes.

[QUOTE=mashman;1130393307:rofl: check your previous post re: power trip.[/QUOTE]

I guess we all do, yeah i found it in the end.

[mashman]

I guess we all do, yeah i found it in the end.

Noooooo... say it ain't so. Anyhoo, back on topic :rofl:... I be Hard Place, and as daft as it may seem to some there are some circumstances where

http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/354/6/b/tron__i_fight_for_the_users_by_wolf117m-d35aej1.png


Yes

No i said "it was futile trying to have a balanced discussion with you" so none of the words are the same other than 'A"

post 605, 4th line from bottom: "a preconceived notion" (fucked up post responding post above the posted posted). Was the one I was referring to... and there was a reasonable before the balanced :laugh:

[husaberg]

Noooooo... say it ain't so. Anyhoo, ..

and there was a reasonable before the balanced :laugh:
Not in many of your posts:bleh:


Btw Yes

[mashman]

Not in many of your posts:bleh:


Btw Yes

heh heh heh... you hurt my feeling.

[husaberg]

heh heh heh... you hurt my feeling.

Who knew you only had one:bleh:

[mashman]

Who knew you only had one:bleh:

I R Robot. What's your excuse for a severe lack of empathy?

[short-circuit]

I R Robot. What's your excuse for a severe lack of empathy?


....or his kick them when they're down (despite the additional economic cost of doing so) attitude.

Cause aside from the lack of social responsibility around the dangers of further stratifying an already massively unequal society through creating extreme poverty (when we already have an underclass and around 200,000 children in poverty), we've still not had an explanation from the economic imperativists about how this makes economic sense.

Not just fucking arseholes but idiots as well that can't see it's in noone's interests

[husaberg]

I R Robot. What's your excuse for a severe lack of empathy?
Au contraire i don't need an excuse, I am not lacking in empathy. Sympathy for those that take money offered as support to help them and spend on drugs well that's another story.


....or his kick them when they're down (despite the additional economic cost of doing so) attitude.

Cause aside from the lack of social responsibility around the dangers of further stratifying an already massively unequal society through creating extreme poverty (when we already have an underclass and around 200,000 children in poverty), we've still not had an explaination from the economic imperativists about how this makes economic sense.

Not just fucking arseholes but idiots as well that can't see it's in noone's interests


It not about kicking people when they are down.I don't believe the state has responsibility to support people who make a lifestlye choice, to take the money offered as support and spend it on drugs, rather than to help their situation.
Perhaps you can explain to me why you may think it does.
Because you talk of social responsibility, what about individual responsibility and personal accountability.

[short-circuit]

Au contraire i don't need an excuse, I am not lacking in empathy. Sympathy for those that take money offered as support to help them and spend on drugs well that's another story.




It not about kicking people when they are down.I don't believe the state has responsibility to support people who make a lifestlye choice, to take the money offered as support and spend it on drugs, rather than to help their situation.

Without even going into the a debate around your beliefs about how society should be, the presence of a substance in someone's body can't prove anything about their spending habits....that's a major problem.

p.s. You never addressed my points around the other logical holes in the policy

p.p.s. Looks like good old bene bashing to me

[husaberg]

Without even going into the a debate around your beliefs about how society should be, the presence of a substance in someone's body can't prove anything about their spending habits....that's a major problem.

p.s. You never addressed my points around the other logical holes in the policy

p.p.s. Looks like good old bene bashing to me

That's your belief. You talk a good game but you never answered my questions.
As for the costs go back a few pages.
Like i have said, Please explain to me why you think the benefit should fund peoples lifestyle choices to take drugs?
I am not bashing beneficiaries just the small percentage of people that choose to take the money and spend it on drugs.

Like i said above you talk of social responsibility, what about individual responsibility and personal accountability?

[short-circuit]

That's your belief. You talk a good game but you never answered my questions.
As for the costs go back a few pages.
Like i have said, Please explain to me why you think the benefit should fund peoples lifestyle choices to take drugs?
I am not bashing beneficiaries just the small percentage of people that choose to take the money and spend it on drugs.

Like i said above you talk of social responsibility, what about individual responsibility and personal accountability?


Yes and I added social and economic reasoning to back up my beliefs not just an ideological standpoint like you.

As I see it a few pages back we established that the costs of testing alone would outweigh "savings" on cuts....and then you'd have the added costs associated with poverty creation (crime, health etc). So the economics argument fails.

You have not addressed a fundamental point I made around the validity of the idea itself however, have another go:
How can the presence of a substance in someone's body can't prove anything about their spending habits? Or, how do you prove a person spent state money on the substance showing up in the test?

On you last point, the word responsible comes from two words: response-able. For this, one needs resources and the flexibility of both internal and external support. Think about that a little before claiming I haven't addressed your quesion. The two are not mutually exclusive. You have not become who you are today on your own despite what you might want to believe.

[husaberg]

Yes and I added social and economic reasoning to back up my beliefs not just an ideological standpoint like you.


As I see it a few pages back we established that the costs of testing alone would outweigh "savings" on cuts....and then you'd have the added costs associated with poverty creation (crime, health etc). So the economics argument fails.

You haven't you pulled some costs, added your own stats and came up with your own figure based on what you want the result to be.Back it up.
The economics of a policy will be judged by its effectiveness in the medium to long term, and whether it causes a change in societies attitude.
The fact it worries a small percent of the population, so much without any significant cost so far shows it can be quite effective.


How can the presence of a substance in someone's body can't prove anything about their spending habits? Or, how do you prove a person spent state money on the substance showing up in the test?
Are they testing for legal drugs? gee are drugs free, do any of the benefits have minimum standards that apply to the receiver of the benefit, check them out you may find that they do.


On you last point, the word responsible comes from two words: response-able. For this, one needs resources and the flexibility of both internal and external support. Think about that a little before claiming I haven't addressed your quesion.
No it doesn't and no you haven't'


Responsible
1.Answerable for an act performed or for its consequences; accountable; amenable, especially legally or politically.
Parents are responsible for their child's behaviour.
2.Capable of responding to any reasonable claim; able to answer reasonably for one's conduct and obligations; capable of rational conduct.
3.Involving responsibility; involving a degree of personal accountability on the part of the person concerned.
She has a responsible position in the firm.
4.Being a primary cause or agent of some event or action; capable of being credited for something, or of being held liable for something.
Who is responsible for this mess?
5.Able to be trusted; reliable; trustworthy.
He looks like a responsible guy


As, i have yet to see any petitions, protests, public outcry or strongly worded letters of condemnation from the united Nations appalled at how unjust the policy is, or will be, i can only gather that there may not be a ground swell of support against the policy. If it is so unjust why is that?
You are just as in-titled to your own opinion as myself so why do you consider your opinion more valid than my own.

[Teflon]

Most drug users will know how to pass a simple drug test.. Thank you Switched on Gardener

[Madness]

I hate to have to mention this but the most popular illegal drug in this country actually grows on trees.

[mashman]

Au contraire i don't need an excuse, I am not lacking in empathy. Sympathy for those that take money offered as support to help them and spend on drugs well that's another story.

If there were enough well paid jobs then I might agree with you in regards to how I felt about their predicament. That isn't the case and as there aren't enough well paid jobs as it is, some people work multiple jobs and still claim some form of support, I would go out on a limb and say that there is always going to be a percentage of the population who need financial support to live. What they spend it on is entirely up to them, personal responsibility and all. Otherwise why should the be "allowed" to buy TV's/cars/games consoles/motorcycles/couch's etc...? vastly more expensive than some recreationals.

However I'd still disagree with the drug testing policy, as I disagree with its implementation in regards to those who already work. I'm all for drugs testing where there is concern that a person is being affected by some form of substance abuse whilst at work, as well as post incident... but not to prove that the workforce is substance free in their private life also.

[Ocean1]

How can the presence of a substance in someone's body can't prove anything about their spending habits? Or, how do you prove a person spent state money on the substance showing up in the test?

That's the thing about charity, it behoves the beneficiary to behave in a manner that matches the benefactor’s expectations. Like it or not most taxpayers don’t wish to donate to either a recipient who will spent the donation on drugs, or one who has enough money without the donation, and yet chooses to spend it on drugs.

The good news is there’s a sure-fire way to beat the problem. Get a fucking job.


I hate to have to mention this but the most popular illegal drug in this country actually grows on trees.

Almost all drugs do. Doesn’t stop fuckwits paying huge money for them.

[Madness]

Almost all drugs do. Doesn’t stop fuckwits paying huge money for them.

They wouldn't have to pay huge money for cannabis if it wasn't illegal. Where can I find an LSD bush?

[Ocean1]

They wouldn't have to pay huge money for cannabis if it wasn't illegal.

Correct.


Where can I find an LSD bush?

Why settle for the synthetic?

269635

[Madness]

Why settle for the synthetic?

Hallucinogens are way cooler than opiates. :msn-wink:

[FJRider]

The good news is there’s a sure-fire way to beat the problem. Get a fucking job.

Getting a job is easy. Keeping it is the hard bit. Employers expect you to earn your pay too ... (bastard's)

And the terms of employment are hard to live with too ... who reads those things before you sign them anyway ... ???

[husaberg]

If there were enough well paid jobs then I might agree with you in regards to how I felt about their predicament. That isn't the case and as there aren't enough well paid jobs as it is, some people work multiple jobs and still claim some form of support, I would go out on a limb and say that there is always going to be a percentage of the population who need financial support to live. What they spend it on is entirely up to them, personal responsibility and all. Otherwise why should the be "allowed" to buy TV's/cars/games consoles/motorcycles/couch's etc...? vastly more expensive than some recreationals.
I have no issues with the vast majority of people on the benefit, for whatever reason. as long as the kids or what ever doesn't go without or what they spend the benefit on..... until it goes onto recreational drugs then it breaks the the deal that they signed up for with society.
The issue when the money is used that effectively both breaks the law and if they are on the unemployment benefit makes them less employable. A lot of companies now do pr-employment screening.

However I'd still disagree with the drug testing policy, as I disagree with its implementation in regards to those who already work. I'm all for drugs testing where there is concern that a person is being affected by some form of substance abuse whilst at work, as well as post incident... but not to prove that the workforce is substance free in their private life also.

Whist I see where you are coming from... the employer decides what conditions your employment is sorry whilst its open for negotiation.... not many would be willing to negotiate this.
What they do in there private life Personally i have no issues but the drugs they test for, for the most part illegal or un-perscribed.
The residue left in their system is still a fail ,(no mater whether people may think its not there business or not) the tests are carried out while the employee is at work. (So is the companies business).
The company i work for that has 50 approx employees. We has lost 3 employees while i felt sorry for the people (More so there families). they knew the rules, and the implications for a zero tolerance drugs policy. They chose their fate at the end of the day.Sad but true.

[Akzle]

Cause aside from the lack of social responsibility around the dangers of further stratifying an already massively unequal society through creating extreme poverty (when we already have an underclass and around 200,000 children in poverty), we've still not had an explaination from the economic imperativists about how this makes economic sense.
see: george carlin on our similarities.
also.
who cares about the cost, national will make the country rich by selling it! (or something :s)

...Sympathy for those that take money offered as support to help them and spend on drugs well that's another story.
...
Because you talk of social responsibility, what about individual responsibility and personal accountability.
ahahahahahahaha.
where in your society does it mention accountability or individual responsibility?! :laugh::laugh: the legislators and law society have well and truly done away with that hogwash.

also, and not for the first time,
WHAT ABOUT THE BENEFICIARIES WHO GROW THEIR OWN DRUGS?



Are they testing for legal drugs? gee are drugs free, do any of the benefits have minimum standards that apply to the receiver of the benefit, check them out you may find that they do.

You are just as in-titled to your own opinion as myself so why do you consider your opinion more valid than my own. my/our opinion is based on what will probably happen in the real world. not la-dee-da, JK is king, sell the assets and lock up them uppity murreys, white-folk BS.
why would they test for legal drugs? (i dont think most drug tests c/would differentiate between the legal and illigal breeds...)


...Like it or not most taxpayers don’t wish to donate to either a recipient who will spent the donation on drugs, or one who has enough money without the donation, and yet chooses to spend it on drugs.

The good news is there’s a sure-fire way to beat the problem. Get a fucking job.what job? not sure if you've been in a hovel for the last year, but when 600+ people with university degrees are applying for supermarket positions, i think it's a fairly good indicator that there innt enough jobs.
as a (former) taxee, i resent that "tax" being used for politicians, police, poor quality road builds, 80% of hospital work etcetera, etcetera.
so what about that?
the benefit gained by cutting politicians/lawyers/judges/polices salaries by 10-40% would probably be enough to service all int'l loans and have the country fluid/solvent,
implementing a drug-test-for-benefit scheme is going to be a net loss, thrice over.


They wouldn't have to pay huge money for cannabis if it wasn't illegal. Where can I find an LSD bush?
this is where teh politzei/stasi come in. they keep doing raids and shit. basic economics, where demand>supply = inflated prices.
so quite right. it's due to it being "illegal"

Hallucinogens are way cooler than opiates. :msn-wink:
broadly speaking, entheogen, specifically, *psychedelic, not an opiate. opiates are derived from teh poppies.

...until it goes onto recreational drug then it breaks the the deal that they signed up for,That is with what a benefit is for.

...They chose their fate at the end of the day.Sad but true.

1)you mean to tell me you've never travelled more than 100km/h? you've never been drunk in public? that's all in breach of the social contract/"deal you signed up for" (by voting). tut tut. :nono:
but a benefit is for people who are unemployed, invalid, or that have a vagina. unfortunately for YOU there is no stipulation that they MUST spend it on food/not smokes/not booze/car repayments/washing machines/shoes for the kids.
unfortunately for you, as adults they are deemed competent of making decisions for themselves, and thus the social security payment does not come with many conditions...

2)..."they" did NOT choose their fate. as with most people who leave home, they make choices, those choices may or may not be viewed by other people as "bad" or "evil" or "an infringement against legislation"
, now since they have done it, they presumably do not believe it to be "bad" or "evil" and they probably had very little to do with the legislation that they apparently infringed

[scumdog]

Bored-as.:yawn:

[husaberg]

[COLOR="#139922"]ahahahahahahaha.
where in your society does it mention accountability or individual responsibility?! :laugh::laugh: the legislators and law society have well and truly done away with that hogwash.


also, and not for the first time,
WHAT ABOUT THE BENEFICIARIES WHO GROW THEIR OWN DRUGS?.

last time i looked in the court pages your question was answered.




why would they test for legal drugs? (i dont think most drug tests c/would differentiate between the legal and illigal breeds...)


the prescription for the legally prescribed ones from a health professional is generally a good giveaway

as a (former) taxee, i resent that "tax" being used for politicians, police, poor quality road builds, 80% of hospital work etcetera, etcetera.
so what about that?
Well you you resent tax, the police, roads and hospitals well that's a clever argument to put forward.............





but a benefit is for people who are unemployed, invalid, or that have a vagina. unfortunately for YOU there is no stipulation that they MUST spend it on food/not smokes/not booze/car repayments/washing machines/shoes for the kids.
unfortunately for you, as adults they are deemed competent of making decisions for themselves, and thus the social security payment does not come with many conditions...
sorry you are wrong the benefit and weather you get one is decided by the people that hand it out not you.they decide the recipient not you.
they are currently in the process of deciding that drug users no longer qualify...that's their prerogative weather you agree or not.


2)..."they" did NOT choose their fate. as with most people who leave home, they make choices, those choices may or may not be viewed by other people as "bad" or "evil" or "an infringement against legislation"
, now since they have done it, they presumably do not believe it to be "bad" or "evil" and they probably had very little to do with the legislation that they apparently infringed



The field in which i work where we are subject to pre employment, random (and not so random) as well as post incident testing.
The field i work in can be construed as dangerous and life threatening certainly no place for people under the influence of anything.
The industry pays pretty good and is safe if you follow the rules and use common sense.
So i are subject to drug tests (and alcohol), I have no issue with it.

So why should the beneficiaries which are being supported either, in their hunt for employment , sickness. raising of a child or recoveries from an accident etc
have an issue with it. The benefit is not meant to subsidise someones drug habit is it. If they are buying drugs, are there kids going short. Why is there surplus money available to afford what, most people would not consider a necessity.

I have no issues with the vast majority of people on the benefit, for whatever reason. as long as the kids or what ever doesn't go without or what they spend the benefit on..... until it goes onto recreational drugs then it breaks the the deal that they signed up for with society.
The issue when the money is used that effectively both breaks the law and if they are on the unemployment benefit makes them less employable. A lot of companies now do pr-employment screening.


Whist I see where you are coming from... the employer decides what conditions your employment is sorry whilst its open for negotiation.... not many would be willing to negotiate this.
What they do in there private life Personally i have no issues but the drugs they test for, for the most part illegal or un-perscribed.
The residue left in their system is still a fail ,(no mater whether people may think its not there business or not) the tests are carried out while the employee is at work. (So is the companies business).
The company i work for that has 50 approx employees. We has lost 3 employees while i felt sorry for the people (More so there families). they knew the rules, and the implications for a zero tolerance drugs policy. They chose their fate at the end of the day.Sad but true.

For your benefit i will include the whole post maybe you should read it rather than respond to part of it out of context.
When you take the to=ime to read it you may then see that they choose their Fate, They knew they could be drug tested at any time.
They knew their job was gone if they tested positive.

[Madness]

Bored-as.:yawn:

Take a trip. :confused:

[Ocean1]

what job? not sure if you've been in a hovel for the last year, but when 600+ people with university degrees are applying for supermarket positions, i think it's a fairly good indicator that there innt enough jobs.]

It’s a good indication that they should have looked around before doing that baccalaureate in tourism majoring in underwater basket weaving, they might have noticed we’re short of engineers.

[scumdog]

[COLOR="#139922"]


as a (former) taxee, i resent that "tax" being used for politicians, police, poor quality road builds, 80% of hospital work etcetera, etcetera.



As a (former) taxee why are you complaining at all about how money from OTHER tax payers is spent??

You have no valid argument...etcetera etcetera etcetera....

[FJRider]

It’s a good indication that they should have looked around before doing that baccalaureate in tourism majoring in underwater basket weaving, they might have noticed we’re short of engineers.

But all the cute chicks do those courses ... :confused:

So my degree in underwater basket weaving is not useful then ... :facepalm:

[mashman]

I have no issues with the vast majority of people on the benefit, for whatever reason. as long as the kids or what ever doesn't go without or what they spend the benefit on..... until it goes onto recreational drugs then it breaks the the deal that they signed up for with society.
The issue when the money is used that effectively both breaks the law and if they are on the unemployment benefit makes them less employable. A lot of companies now do pr-employment screening.


What's the big issue in regards to drugs that makes it a deal breaker? It only makes someone less employable if they refuse the test.



Whist I see where you are coming from... the employer decides what conditions your employment is sorry whilst its open for negotiation.... not many would be willing to negotiate this.
What they do in there private life Personally i have no issues but the drugs they test for, for the most part illegal or un-perscribed.
The residue left in their system is still a fail ,(no mater whether people may think its not there business or not) the tests are carried out while the employee is at work. (So is the companies business).
The company i work for that has 50 approx employees. We has lost 3 employees while i felt sorry for the people (More so there families). they knew the rules, and the implications for a zero tolerance drugs policy. They chose their fate at the end of the day.Sad but true.

I agree that the employer and employee could talk terms and drug use most definitely should be discussed if the employer wishes to pursue with random drug tests etc... I have seen a few drugs clauses in contracts I have signed and as sometimes I have taken that to heart because I needed the job. Oddly enough something that I resented at the time along with me feeling disappointed that I was toeing that line. It'll not happen again, but then I haven't had any drugs in some months, by choice too to a certain degree. So whilst I'm sure you'll think that I'll only have myself to blame should I ever be sacked for having drugs in my system, I will be blaming the employer :shit:. Radical train of thought I know... but if I stay drugs free whilst at work, always have, always will (bar once or twice in my youth), then I will not see it as a valid reason to be sacked. Bummer to hear about your colleagues, and their families, having had that treatment, it must really piss them off that the employer was looking to get rid of them. Seems like a waste, snigger, to get rid of good staff because they have "residue" left in their system.


It’s a good indication that they should have looked around before doing that baccalaureate in tourism majoring in underwater basket weaving, they might have noticed we’re short of engineers.

How dare people choose to study that which interests them... I wouldn't mind trying some form of engineering, but I can't afford to re-train.

[Akzle]

last time i looked in the court pages your question was answered.
...
Well you you resent tax, the police, roads and hospitals well that's a clever argument to put forward.............

sorry you are wrong the benefit and weather you get one is decided by the people that hand it out not you.they decide the recipient not you.

they are currently in the process of deciding that drug users no longer qualify...that's their prerogative weather you agree or not. <- this doesn't make sense


For your benefit i will include the whole post maybe you should read it rather than respond to part of it out of context. i'm responding to the parts i feel like, nothing is really "out of context" as you're quite lacking in context by any definition.

1) wtf is "the court pages"?
2) i resent what tax is spent on. that's not exactly an "argument" for or against. that was stated in response to ocean saying he resents how beneficiaries, though given the right by the politicians who presumably fleece him for tax, spend the money. i resent the entire system. i'm not laying the blame at the feet of the recipients of 180$/week cos they can't find work. i'm laying it at the 50k/year + pollys.
3) the "benefit" is DICTATED by the united nations. it is NOT "decided" by those who hand it out. there is a set list of criteria of people who are ELIGIBLE for a handout. as mentioned in my last post: unemployed, invalid or in possession of a vagina. (all the same thing really, innit :P)
4) you handily skipped over every question posed you....:doh:


It’s a good indication that they should have looked around before doing that baccalaureate in tourism majoring in underwater basket weaving, they might have noticed we’re short of engineers.a) no not really, b) i wonder why that might be c) how's australia paying?

[FJRider]

How dare people choose to study that which interests them... I wouldn't mind trying some form of engineering, but I can't afford to re-train.

But at least they dont have to start paying the student loan back ... untill they come off the benefit ...

[Akzle]

As a (former) taxee why are you complaining at all about how money from OTHER tax payers is spent??

You have no valid argument...etcetera etcetera etcetera....

as a (current) piss-poor troll, why are you on this thread?
you have no valid anything... etcetera etcetera.

[mashman]

But at least they dont have to start paying the student loan back ... untill they come off the benefit ...

I can't imagine that lasting for much longer.

[husaberg]

i'm responding to the parts i feel like, nothing is really "out of context" as you're quite lacking in context by any definition.

1) wtf is "the court pages"?
2) i resent what tax is spent on. that's not exactly an "argument" for or against. that was stated in response to ocean saying he resents how beneficiaries, though given the right by the politicians who presumably fleece him for tax, spend the money. i resent the entire system. i'm not laying the blame at the feet of the recipients of 180$/week cos they can't find work. i'm laying it at the 50k/year + pollys.
3) the "benefit" is DICTATED by the united nations. it is NOT "decided" by those who hand it out. there is a set list of criteria of people who are ELIGIBLE for a handout. as mentioned in my last post: unemployed, invalid or in possession of a vagina. (all the same thing really, innit :P)
4) you handily skipped over every question posed you....:doh:

a) no not really, b) i wonder why that might be c) how's australia paying?

Your attention span and comprehension skills are rather lacking as are the validity of your augments.
Read my response i answered every question. You just didn't like the answers.
If you serious think its ok to do drugs on the benefit, take out an ad in the paper (that's where the court pages are displayed BTW)
Tell everyone you are doing drugs dare the Authorities to drug test you fail the drug test everything will be sweet for you...Right
The UN will fix it for "you insert TUI ad here"
I can't really be arsed humoring you anymore, because your not that funny. Ok, i take that back, you are super funny... but i are not laughing with you.....
Maybe i do need more sympathy :bye:


What's the big issue in regards to drugs that makes it a deal breaker? It only makes someone less employable if they refuse the test.
We are a contractor for a major entity. the Major entity, has a policy, we have to uphold it..or else have no work from them....
We also do a lot of other sub contracts all over Australasia, they all also have the same drug policies.


So whilst I'm sure you'll think that I'll only have myself to blame should I ever be sacked for having drugs in my system, I will be blaming the employer :shit:. Radical train of thought I know... Yip radical alright, esp if you signed up for it



Bummer to hear about your colleagues, and their families, having had that treatment, it must really piss them off that the employer was looking to get rid of them. Seems like a waste, snigger, to get rid of good staff because they have "residue" left in their system.
You would have to be a robot not to feel for them and the families esp..... But it is hard. You can't have a Zero tolerance policy (no doubt expensive as well)
without enforcing it. It has to be one rule for all its clearly spelled out after-all. Everyone's subject to it, and everyone has been tested. 6% has failed which is a shame and a waste of potential.

[Ocean1]

It’s a good indication that they should have looked around before doing that baccalaureate in tourism majoring in underwater basket weaving, they might have noticed we’re short of engineers.


How dare people choose to study that which interests them... I wouldn't mind trying some form of engineering, but I can't afford to re-train.

I see the problem, there. You thought that education was for entertainment!
And yes, only special people get a second shot at it.

Frankly, I don't give a fuck what they studied, just so's they don't come bitching to me with the hand out when it turns out to have been a poor choice.


a) no not really, b) i wonder why that might be c) how's australia paying?

a) It's an outstanding indication that they're lacking in marketable skills, stop flapping your lips just to hear yourself talk.

b)Why we're short of engineers? Because a couple of generations thought their stuff was made by computers and that engineers were old fashioned anachronisms. Turns out they were wrong.

c) Fucking outstandingly, thanks for asking, I’m just back from a very profitable wee assignment over there. WA in particular pay qualified techies very handsomely.

[short-circuit]

Your attention span and comprehension skills are rather lacking as are the validity of your augments.
Read my response i answered every question. You just didn't like the answers.

blah blah blah I have nothing at all better to do with my entire saturday from 7:40 am than bash beneficiaries....


Pot meet Kettle:
You did the same with me failing to respond to the points I raised in post 623 (aimed squarely at you) and the direct questions I put to you in posts 625 and 627. Instead you chose to deflect posting off topic statements couched as questions.

[FJRider]

I see the problem, there. You thought that education was for entertainment!
And yes, only special people get a second shot at it.

It's funny how their "entertainment" features often on the TV news ...
mashman is special. Ask his mum.


Frankly, I don't give a fuck what they studied, just so's they don't come bitching to me with the hand out when it turns out to have been a poor choice.

Or bugger off overseas without any intention of any repayment of their tax-payer funded loan.


a) It's an outstanding indication that they're lacking in marketable skills, stop flapping your lips just to hear yourself talk.

b)Why we're short of engineers? Because a couple of generations thought their stuff was made by computers and that engineers were old fashioned anachronisms. Turns out they were wrong.

c) Fucking outstandingly, thanks for asking, I’m just back from a very profitable wee assignment over there. WA in particular pay qualified techies very handsomely.

a) He does that a lot ...

b) It's the difference between design ... and build.

c) Qualified and experience ... always pays well. No matter the occupation.

[mashman]

We are a contractor for a major entity. the Major entity, has a policy, we have to uphold it..or else have no work from them....
We also do a lot of other sub contracts all over Australasia, they all also have the same drug policies.

Yip radical alright, esp if you signed up for it

You would have to be a robot not to feel for them and the families esp..... But it is hard. You can't have a Zero tolerance policy (no doubt expensive as well)
without enforcing it. It has to be one rule for all its clearly spelled out after-all. Everyone's subject to it, and everyone has been tested. 6% has failed which is a shame and a waste of potential.

Many accidents?

Ahhh, the hiding behind the contract defence. Fair enough. Be funny to see employees living within the confines of their contracts and only do their jobs and no more.

You can have a zero tolerance policy without enforcing it. It's entirely up to those who make the decisions. I agree with the waste of potential if those people weren't using at their place of employment. Shame that the contract of employment extends into private life.


I see the problem, there. You thought that education was for entertainment!
And yes, only special people get a second shot at it.

Frankly, I don't give a fuck what they studied, just so's they don't come bitching to me with the hand out when it turns out to have been a poor choice.

How do you figure that?
Such a shame.

They don't do they?

[husaberg]

Many accidents?
No but one of them worked by himself a lot which was a risk two of the others were very forgetful and random, (but all were nice people)
Ahhh, the hiding behind the contract defence. Fair enough. Be funny to see employees living within the confines of their contracts and only do their jobs and no more.


You can have a zero tolerance policy without enforcing it. er ... it doesn't work when the entity is given the results. if you didn't can't use the people it would kind of be hard to justify continuing to pay them......


It's entirely up to those who make the decisions.
Correct, but the decision is made by the person who knowingly takes the drugs when they know the policy.
What you suggest is a TOTAL TOLERANCE POLICY

I agree with the waste of potential if those people weren't using at their place of employment.
Shame that the contract of employment extends into private life.
Yeah but the drug tests were failed while the employee was at work.
I personally think its a shame their drug taking interfered with there employment....

[husaberg]

Pot meet Kettle:
You did the same with me failing to respond to the points I raised in post 623 (aimed squarely at you) and the direct questions I put to you in posts 625 and 627. Instead you chose to deflect posting off topic statements couched as questions.

POst 623 is a quote to Mashman i am not Mashman. Sorry Mashman but its true. There can be only one Mashman

The questions were answered, have you forgotten? Well i will refresh your memory


Yes and I added social and economic reasoning to back up my beliefs not just an ideological standpoint like you.


As I see it a few pages back we established that the costs of testing alone would outweigh "savings" on cuts....and then you'd have the added costs associated with poverty creation (crime, health etc). So the economics argument fails.

You haven't you pulled some costs, added your own stats and came up with your own figure based on what you want the result to be.Back it up.
The economics of a policy will be judged by its effectiveness in the medium to long term, and whether it causes a change in societies attitude.
The fact it worries a small percent of the population, so much without any significant cost so far shows it can be quite effective.


How can the presence of a substance in someone's body can't prove anything about their spending habits? Or, how do you prove a person spent state money on the substance showing up in the test?
Are they testing for legal drugs? gee are drugs free, do any of the benefits have minimum standards that apply to the receiver of the benefit, check them out you may find that they do.


On you last point, the word responsible comes from two words: response-able. For this, one needs resources and the flexibility of both internal and external support. Think about that a little before claiming I haven't addressed your quesion.
No it doesn't and no you haven't'


Responsible
1.Answerable for an act performed or for its consequences; accountable; amenable, especially legally or politically.
Parents are responsible for their child's behaviour.
2.Capable of responding to any reasonable claim; able to answer reasonably for one's conduct and obligations; capable of rational conduct.
3.Involving responsibility; involving a degree of personal accountability on the part of the person concerned.
She has a responsible position in the firm.
4.Being a primary cause or agent of some event or action; capable of being credited for something, or of being held liable for something.
Who is responsible for this mess?
5.Able to be trusted; reliable; trustworthy.
He looks like a responsible guy


As, i have yet to see any petitions, protests, public outcry or strongly worded letters of condemnation from the united Nations appalled at how unjust the policy is, or will be, i can only gather that there may not be a ground swell of support against the policy. If it is so unjust why is that?
You are just as in-titled to your own opinion as myself so why do you consider your opinion more valid than my own.

Without even going into the a debate around your beliefs about how society should be, the presence of a substance in someone's body can't prove anything about their spending habits....that's a major problem.

p.s. You never addressed my points around the other logical holes in the policy

p.p.s. Looks like good old bene bashing to me

That's your belief. You talk a good game but you never answered my questions.
As for the costs go back a few pages.
Like i have said, Please explain to me why you think the benefit should fund peoples lifestyle choices to take drugs?
I am not bashing beneficiaries just the small percentage of people that choose to take the money and spend it on drugs.

Like i said above you talk of social responsibility, what about individual responsibility and personal accountability?

[mashman]

No but one of them worked by himself a lot which was a risk two of the others were very forgetful and random, (but all were nice people)

er ... it doesn't work when the entity is given the results. if you didn't can't use the people it would kind of be hard to justify continuing to pay them......

Correct, but the decision is made by the person who knowingly takes the drugs when they know the policy.
What you suggest is a TOTAL TOLERANCE POLICY

Yeah but the drug tests were failed while the employee was at work.
I personally think its a shame their drug taking interfered with there employment....

Are you attributing that to drug use?

It does if the policy is led from the top.

True, the person can do what they like in their free time can't they?
No I'm not. What I'm suggesting is that if you suspect that someone is using drugs at work, then test them. If there is an incident, then test them. That's not a total tolerance policy.

This is where it falls apart for me. I don't believe that work should have such a high priority that it interferes with what a person likes to do in their free time 24/7. The tests need to be better before they can be relied upon... they're fucking with people's lives and personal choices and it highlights that those who enforce such policy have little understanding, or actually give a shit, about how "flawed" the tests are.
:rofl: @ drug taking interfering with their employment. Something is very very wrong with that sentence.

[Ocean1]

I don't believe that work should have such a high priority that it interferes with what a person likes to do in their free time 24/7.

Yeah, god forbid work should intefere with your "work/life blend".

Which, in spite of what you might have heard requires one to work first, then you get to live. And not before.

[husaberg]

Are you attributing that to drug use?
Can't say, but one of the employee's attendance records on Mondays improved dramatically after random drug testing was initiated, Sadly ironically he failed a scheduled drug test A and B plus another one the same day. The drug test he failed was before an Aussie job conditions of participation and entry to site for the job was a drug test this came from the people paying for the Job. While they were there. They were also tested daily, prior to work which is common.

It does if the policy is led from the top.
policies are like that. Generally made by those that pay the bills:confused:

True, the person can do what they like in their free time can't they?
Yeah but they failed drug tests in Work time while at work.

No I'm not. What I'm suggesting is that if you suspect that someone is using drugs at work, then test them. If there is an incident, then test them. That's not a total tolerance policy.
Sorry They sign up for it, are well paid, they accept the policy. (They may not like it, But can leave)They are also tested prior to employment. The policy is clear.
Re the rest of your points this would no doubt happen as well anyway the Post incident is certainly mandatory Alcohol as well.


This is where it falls apart for me. I don't believe that work should have such a high priority that it interferes with what a person likes to do in their free time 24/7. The tests need to be better before they can be relied upon... they're fucking with people's lives and personal choices
I guess you won't be joining us then anytime soon. PS the employees are also on call at lot rostered and are paid for this as well regardless.

:rofl: @ drug taking interfering with their employment. Something is very very wrong with that sentence.

You got that right just ask there families......

[mashman]

Yeah, god forbid work should intefere with your "work/life blend".

Which, in spite of what you might have heard requires one to work first, then you get to live. And not before.

Damn right... I never thought you'd see sense.

Oh hang on, normal service seems to have resumed. I ain't got no problems with working. Tis when it encroaches, unduly, on my personal life that I start to draw the line. Funny. I seem to remember enjoying myself more when I was younger, quite possibly because I didn't have to work, quite possibly because I figured that work was a means to an end and no more... which is essentially true. Makes me giggle to think that people prize their working day so highly and to a degree where work is an absolute necessity for people to barely put food on the table. Something went horribly wrong somewhere.

[Ocean1]

I ain't got no problems with working. Tis when it encroaches, unduly, on my personal life that I start to draw the line. Funny. I seem to remember enjoying myself more when I was younger, quite possibly because I didn't have to work, quite possibly because I figured that work was a means to an end and no more... which is essentially true. Makes me giggle to think that people prize their working day so highly and to a degree where work is an absolute necessity for people to barely put food on the table. Something went horribly wrong somewhere.

P'raps you've got one of them Champaign taste on a beer salary problems.

Me, I like both.

[mashman]

Can't say, but one of the employee's attendance records on Mondays improved dramatically after random drug testing was initiated, Sadly ironically he failed a scheduled drug test A and B plus another one the same day. The drug test he failed was before an Aussie job conditions of participation and entry to site for the job was a drug test this came from the people paying for the Job. While they were there. They were also tested daily, prior to work which is common.

policies are like that. Generally made by those that pay the bills:confused:

Yeah but they failed drug tests in Work time while at work.

Sorry They sign up for it, are well paid, they accept the policy. (They may not like it, But can leave)They are also tested prior to employment. The policy is clear.
Re the rest of your points this would no doubt happen as well anyway the Post incident is certainly mandatory Alcohol as well.


I guess you won't be joining us then anytime soon. PS the employees are also on call at lot rostered and are paid for this as well regardless.


You got that right just ask there families......

So it was affecting his work then. Did he receive a second chance?

:rofl: gone are the days where you can just do an honest days work eh... now there's all sorts of strings attached.

In understand what you are saying. If he was taking drugs at work, then yes, it was his own fault. If he had taken them the night before and only had traces in his blood, then I disagree that it was his fault and that the test is flawed.

Fine if the tests aren't flawed... shame that they are and as a result it loses people their jobs.

I have no problem with being straight if I'm on call either... it's work time.

I bet their family's ain't entirely pissed off with those who lost their jobs, unless they were under the influence on the job... my missus wouldn't blame me.

[mashman]

P'raps you've got one of them Champaign taste on a beer salary problems.

Me, I like both.

heh... can't stand champagne and make my own beer (rarely go to the pub these days)... just as well as I need the money to feed my ciggy habit... the kids can go without... and iffen I need more money I'll get a better paid job.

[short-circuit]

If the argument for testing is on the basis that spending money from the benefit on drugs constitutes breaking a cough cough social contract, then once again:

How does a positive drug test prove definitively that state money got spent on said drugs?

Other options for the imaginative:

Produce your own
Supplied to by friend, family member, associate
Barter / trade / “earned"


Just to pre-empt it, the legality question around this is a completely separate issue.

[sidecar bob]

Cannabis, creating shit talking morons since ages ago.:yawn:

[scumdog]

as a (current) piss-poor troll, why are you on this thread?
you have no valid anything... etcetera etcetera.


No second prizes sonny, no second prizes...<_<

[scumdog]

Cannabis, creating shit talking morons since ages ago.:yawn:

Hmm, this thread kinda adds weight to your comment...

[Madness]

Cannabis, creating shit talking morons since ages ago.:yawn:

What's your excuse?

[FJRider]

If the argument for testing is on the basis that spending money from the benefit on drugs constitutes breaking a cough cough social contract, then once again:



It's not about what their money is spent on ... it's about what their time is spent on.

If looking for work is their aim ... sitting around at home smoking dope wont find you work.

[husaberg]

If the argument for testing is on the basis that spending money from the benefit on drugs constitutes breaking a cough cough social contract, then once again:

How does a positive drug test prove definitively that state money got spent on said drugs?

Other options for the imaginative:

Produce your own
Supplied to by friend, family member, associate
Barter / trade / “earned"


Just to pre-empt it, the legality question around this is a completely separate issue.

Issues you have few...........
You can attempt to preempt what ever you like,Problem is you don't make the rules. the people paying the bills do.

Like i said earlier go on the benefit, take the money tell take out an add in the paper telling everyone its your right to do illlegal drugs cause you are your own person.
See yourself get tested, then booted off the benefit, then argue you case. Go on, if you are so sure your right, do it.....

[short-circuit]

It's not about what their money is spent on ... it's about what their time is spent on.

If looking for work is their aim ... sitting around at home smoking dope wont find you work.

You'd be out looking for work after 6pm? Sundays? Fuck off. Illconceived policy, flawed as fuck both ideologically and practically.

[short-circuit]

Issues you have few You can attempt to preempt what ever you like,Problem is you don't make the rules. the people paying the bills do.

Like i said earlier go on the benefit, take the money tell take out an add in the paper telling everyone its your right to do illlegal drugs cause you are your own person.
See get tested then booted off the benefit then argue you case. Go on if you are so sure your right do it.....

Don't you get tired of wasting your life talking shite? You think they'll start withdrawing entitlements for speeding tickets? No doubt you'd support that too

[FJRider]

You'd be out looking for work after 6pm? Sundays? Fuck off. Illconceived policy, flawed as fuck both ideologically and practically.

And you fail the drug test the next day/monday. That would work how ... ???

[short-circuit]

And you fail the drug test the next day/monday. That would work how ... ???

There is no simple answer as to how long drugs will remain in your system, since the answer is influenced by the specific drug half-life, intensity of the usage, method of usage, length of usage, tolerance, fluid intake, body size, body fat, metabolism, andthe specific range which the drug testing lab uses to signify a positive for drug use. But the following table provides some general guidelines for the amount of time a drug can be detected by most standard drug tests:



Drug

Detection Time



Alcohol

6–24 hours



Amphetamines

2–3 days



Barbituates

1 day to 3 weeks



Benzodiazepines

3–7 days



Cocaine

2–5 days



Codeine

3–5 days



Euphorics (MDMA, Ecstasy)

1–3 days



LSD

1-4 days



Marijuana (THC)

7–30 days



Methadone

3–5 days



Methaqualone

14 days



Opiates

1-4 days



Phencyclidine (PCP)

2–4 days



Steroids (anabolic)

14–30 days

[Madness]

And you fail the drug test the next day/monday. That would work how ... ???

That's exactly why drug testing is flawed. It's much the same as if roadside alcohol testing picked up traces of alcohol in the system from days before, at levels that would not impede the drivers ability to drive.

[mashman]

It's not about what their money is spent on ... it's about what their time is spent on.

If looking for work is their aim ... sitting around at home smoking dope wont find you work.

Maybe, just maybe it's about both :shit: It reminds me of the scene from The Dark Knight where the Joker pops into Gamble house, kills him, snaps a pool cue in half and throws it on the floor between three of Gamble's associates announcing that he has an job opening for one of the associates. Keep them scrambling because just in case they decide organise themselves.

Didn't do me any harm. I upskilled by catching up on 3 years worth of tech in 4 weeks, did a fuckload in the garden (oh and sidecar knob, I dug a few holes), picked my kids up (noooo not under the influence) and bagged myself a handful of interviews for unsuitable positions (surfing the net stoned... fuckin hard work to stay away from all that porn I can tell ya), figured out exactly how the world works and found myself a job. All whilst not claiming the dole... so contrary to your statement, it doesn't stop you from doing anything, other than driving. People can even find jobs, attend interviews and do other stuff too. It's a miracle that a person could function eh <_<

[husaberg]

Don't you get tired of wasting your life talking shite? Y

No but i get pretty tired of listening to your shit talk.
You attempt to talk a good game but you wouldn't even make the reserves..........

How about you put up or shut up.
Come on show us the courage of your convictions.


Problem is you don't make the rules. the people paying the bills do.

Like i said earlier go on the benefit, take the money tell take out an add in the paper telling everyone its your right to do illlegal drugs cause you are your own person.
See yourself get tested, then booted off the benefit, then argue you case. Go on, if you are so sure your right, do it.....

[short-circuit]

No but i get pretty tired of listening to your shit talk.
You attempt to talk a good game but you wouldn't even make the reserves..........

Put up or shut up.
Come on show us the courage of your convictions.

So what...?

I should resign from my job, claim the dole, start using drugs, advertise this in the paper so I can be tested and verify whether I would lose my benefit or not

....and if I don't you win?

Does your mummy know you're still up?

[FJRider]

That's exactly why drug testing is flawed. It's much the same as if roadside alcohol testing picked up traces of alcohol in the system from days before, at levels that would not impede the drivers ability to drive.

Maybe some employers don't want to hire users of any illegal drugs. In which case it would not be "flawed" ... the amount in you system would be the issue. It just being there would be to that employer.

[Madness]

Maybe some employers don't want to hire users of any illegal drugs. In which case it would not be "flawed" ... the amount in you system would be the issue. It just being there would be to that employer.

Not really what this thread's about though, is it?

[oneofsix]

Maybe some employers don't want to hire users of any illegal drugs. In which case it would not be "flawed" ... the amount in you system would be the issue. It just being there would be to that employer.

But the tests themselves are floored, one example being that if you eat sesame seed cake or bagels and you will test positive.

[short-circuit]

Maybe some employers don't want to hire users of any illegal drugs. In which case it would not be "flawed" ... the amount in you system would be the issue. It just being there would be to that employer.

Then why target only beneficiaries? Those employers should pay for their own testing (not using tax dollars) and start with their existing workforce.

You really are dancing now to find a justification.

[mashman]

Not really what this thread's about though, is it?

Oddly enough it is. Put the pipe down bro.

The down side is that this thread is about that exact thing. You're not allowed to take drugs, therefore if you take drugs you are not to be trusted, 1) because you are using drugs (probably regularly, assumption) and B) because you are breaking the law. Tis a bitter disappointment given that drugs have been almost tolerated up til this point and the reason most of them have been made illegal is because of a set of misconceptions and propaganda.

I'm hoping the fallout is spectacular. It may actually wake a few people the fuck up as fortunately not everyone is, even non users, is anti drugs... tis a shame we can't all benefit, pun intended, from their legalisation... but that's a political hot potato that no govt/political party has the balls for and only highlights the idiocy of ALL policy making.

[husaberg]

So what...?

I should resign from my job, claim the dole, start using drugs, advertise this in the paper so I can be tested and verify whether I would lose my benefit or not

....and if I don't you win?

Does your mummy know you're still up?

Like i said put up or shut up.Afterall you are right aren't you..... thought not FOS.


Then why target only beneficiaries? Those employers should pay for their own testing (not using tax dollars) and start with their existing workforce.


Read some posts you are truly deluded.....


I will no doubt get flamed but jeeze.
The field in which i work where we are subject to pre employment, random (and not so random) as well as post incident testing.
The field i work in can be construed as dangerous and life threatening certainly no place for people under the influence of anything.
The industry pays pretty good and is safe if you follow the rules and use common sense.
So i are subject to drug tests (and alcohol), I have no issue with it.

So why should the beneficiaries which are being supported either, in their hunt for employment , sickness. raising of a child or recoveries from an accident etc
have an issue with it. The benefit is not meant to subsidise someones drug habit is it. If they are buying drugs, are there kids going short. Why is there surplus money available to afford what, most people would not consider a necessity.

[short-circuit]

Oddly enough it is.

yes but

a) the withholding of an entitlement is not a legal sanction
b) the application is discriminitory in that it targets only a particular group who stand to lose twice (loss of entitlement plus prosecution)
c) the logic behind the policy has yet to be explained

[short-circuit]

Like i said put up or shut up.Afterall you are right aren't you..... thought not FOS.



Read some posts you are truly deluded.....

I'm begining to think you are either a child or are brain damaged.

[Madness]

Oddly enough it is. Put the pipe down bro.

Alas the tin is empty, hence the brain fart. Some people perform better with a bit o' THC in their system :msn-wink:

[mashman]

yes but

a) the withholding on an entitlement is not a legal response
b) the application is discriminitory in that it targets only a particular group would stand to lose twice (loss of entitlement plus prosecution)
c) the logic behind the policy has yet to be explained

No need to sell me on that ya cunt.

[husaberg]

I'm begining to think you are either a child or are brain damaged.

From what i have seen with your posts. i see no evidence of you begining to think at all.

[FJRider]

Then why target only beneficiaries? Those employers should pay for their own testing (not using tax dollars) and start with their existing workforce workers.

You really are dancing now to find a justification.

Where is it said that ALL testing will be paid by WINZ ... ???

Most employers do pay for the test as a normal step/condition ... in the process of pre-employment now. And a regular random test as a matter of course .... for all staff.

What is being proposed by the esteemed minister of welfare is ... they must pass a pre-employment drugs test. A fail would see them loose the benefit. As well as not getting the job. If it gets people off their books ... I can't see why WINZ couldn't pay for the test ... if they are asked to. Who pays for it is of little importance in the great scheme of things ...

WINZ pay a reasonable subsidy for the employment of those that were on a benefit. And well worth hiring from an initial financial gain for the employer .... at least 6 months of subsidy. (I think)

[mashman]

Alas the tin is empty, hence the brain fart. Some people perform better with a bit o' THC in their system :msn-wink:

:rofl: dat ain't no excuse, you're just fuelling their fire... I'm here for ya man, I know how it feels and you aren't exhibiting the classic signs... there must be something else wrong with you.

[husaberg]

No need to sell me on that ya cunt.

He won't be able too why because what happens when someone is fired for failing a drug test exactly what he says can't happen LOL

Hes also that ill informed he isn't aware that some employers actually do drug test their staff.


Then why target only beneficiaries? Those employers should pay for their own testing (not using tax dollars) and start with their existing workforce.

He google's some shit takes it out of context, then thinks then hes a barrister.
I think he has some faulty wiring.....

[FJRider]

But the tests themselves are floored, one example being that if you eat sesame seed cake or bagels and you will test positive.

Well ... if you're on a benefit and going to do the test ... don't eat any.

:done: :laugh:

[mashman]

WINZ pay a reasonable subsidy for the employment of those that were on a benefit. And well worth hiring from an initial financial gain for the employer .... at least 6 months of subsidy. (I think)

I gots to ask the question if the above is true... but why would WINZ pay any subsidy? I'm kinda stunned to here that... and I'll leave the tin foil hat to one side and just stare at the monitor in disbelief.

[Madness]

Well ... if you're on a benefit and going to do the test ... don't eat any.

There's a good chance that of you're on a benefit in this country you can't afford bagels.

[mashman]

He won't be able too why because what happens when someone is fired for failing a drug test exactly what he says can't happen LOL

I agree with him for the most part... my turn of phrase was that of a manly hug.

[FJRider]

I gots to ask the question if the above is true... but why would WINZ pay any subsidy? I'm kinda stunned to here that... and I'll leave the tin foil hat to one side and just stare at the monitor in disbelief.

I understand it is at least the amount of the benefit ... paid to the employer for those that had been on a benefit for more than 3 months (I think)

[FJRider]

... there must be something else wrong with you.

Maybe .... he's special too ... <_<

[husaberg]

I agree with him for the most part... my turn of phrase was that of a manly hug.
And this one a boyish.......I shudder to think

Then why target only beneficiaries? Those employers should pay for their own testing (not using tax dollars) and start with their existing workforce.


Now mashy come on......

[Madness]

Maybe .... he's special too ...

The gay thread's over that way :doobey:

[mashman]

I understand it is at least the amount of the benefit ... paid to the employer for those that had been on a benefit for more than 3 months (I think)

You're taunting me arnchu...


Maybe .... he's special too ... <_<

He's not. Not that he knocked me back like, I'm just guessing.


And this one a boyish.......I shudder to think

Now mashy come on......

Isn't the law about interpretation. You said it yourself, if it is good for 1 it is good for all and that clearly isn't the case. I didn't have to pass a drugs test to get my job and I dare say there are many others who don't either. That could quite easily mean that beneficiaries are being targetted. You'd have to be pretty well entrenched in some fucked up ideology to deny that... no offense like, just sayin.

[FJRider]

You're taunting me arnchu...



I wouldn't lie to you ... :innocent:

But I have been "Between jobs" a few times ... and my employers were forthcoming with the employment conditions of WINZ. Potential employers would do well to ask about the subsidy.

[husaberg]

Isn't the law about interpretation. You said it yourself, if it is good for 1 it is good for all and that clearly isn't the case. I didn't have to pass a drugs test to get my job and I dare say there are many others who don't either. That could quite easily mean that beneficiaries are being targetted. You'd have to be pretty well entrenched in some fucked up ideology to deny that... no offense like, just sayin.

Nah the point i'm making is he isn't aware of it.

Sure this rule is about targeted beneficiaries, not all of them, just the ones who take drugs.:laugh:

Like i have said the one who pays the money, makes the rules.

[Akzle]

Your attention span and comprehension skills are rather lacking as are the validity of your augments.
Read my response i answered every question.
no. you didn't.

i think you must be one of FJ's mates... you get driven around in those vans. licking the windows and writing your special "poetry" on the walls with your own feces....


a) It's an outstanding indication that they're lacking in marketable skills, stop flapping your lips just to hear yourself talk. <- this doesn't make sense. try again.

b)Why we're short of engineers? Because a couple of generations thought their stuff was made by computers and that engineers were old fashioned anachronisms. Turns out they were wrong.where the fuck are we short of engineers??? srsly.. find me a workshop (that doesn't drug test employees ><) and i'll take it up for a while....


Pot meet Kettle:
You did the same with me failing to respond to the points I raised in post 623 (aimed squarely at you) and the direct questions I put to you in posts 625 and 627. Instead you chose to deflect posting off topic statements couched as questions.
i think he trollin'. noone can be that thick. (asides from FJ.)


Yeah, god forbid work should intefere with your "work/life blend".

Which, in spite of what you might have heard requires one to work first, then you get to live. And not before.
hahahahhaha. that means your life is going to be shit. but nevermind. government loves you. (nevermind that mum used to dress you in diapers and smack you... when you were 14.)

Cannabissidecar bob, creating shit talking morons since ages ago.:yawn:
can you get your name changed, having the same name as a fuckwit of your calibre makes me feel sticky.


Like i said earlier go on the benefit, take the money tell take out an add in the paper telling everyone its your right to do illlegal drugs cause you are your own person.
See yourself get tested, then booted off the benefit, then argue you case. Go on, if you are so sure your right, do it.....

what the fuck does this HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?? why don't YOU put an ad in the paper
"wanted, windows, clean or semi-clean, view with birdies and pretty sun. for licking. cheap or free"

[husaberg]

no. you didn't.

i think you must be one of FJ's mates... you get driven around in those vans. licking the windows and writing your special "poetry" on the walls with your own feces....

where the fuck are we short of engineers??? srsly.. find me a workshop (that doesn't drug test employees ><) and i'll take it up for a while....


i think he trollin'. noone can be that thick. (asides from FJ.)


hahahahhaha. that means your life is going to be shit. but nevermind. government loves you. (nevermind that mum used to dress you in diapers and smack you... when you were 14.)

can you get your name changed, having the same name as a fuckwit of your calibre makes me feel sticky.


what the fuck does this HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?? why don't YOU put an ad in the paper
"wanted, windows, clean or semi-clean, view with birdies and pretty sun. for licking. cheap or free"

Behold the reason people feel the need to drug test Beneficiaries..........

[mashman]

I wouldn't lie to you ... :innocent:

But I have been "Between jobs" a few times ... and my employers were forthcoming with the employment conditions of WINZ. Potential employers would do well to ask about the subsidy.

I never doubted you............. much.

Cunning way to cull the dole numbers whilst still paying for them, albeit not them getting paid :facepalm:


Nah the point i'm making is he isn't aware of it.

Sure this rule is about targeted beneficiaries, not all of them, just the ones who take drugs.:laugh:

Like i have said the one who pays the money, makes the rules.

Aware of what?

:rofl: ahhhh that makes perfect sense. Do we know who will be paying for these drugs tests yet?

I think we all understand that. Does that mean we can have a referendum then?

[FJRider]

Isn't the law about interpretation. You said it yourself, if it is good for 1 it is good for all and that clearly isn't the case. I didn't have to pass a drugs test to get my job and I dare say there are many others who don't either. That could quite easily mean that beneficiaries are being targetted. You'd have to be pretty well entrenched in some fucked up ideology to deny that... no offense like, just sayin.

Where is it written ... that a drug test will be required for every job being applied for ... ??? I recall the word "May" even being mentioned at the start of the announcement. Some employers may not give a toss either way. With the 90 day trial period in law ... they have an "out" if they need one.

It is interesting that .... beneficiaries are being described (by beneficiaries) ... as being targeted ... perhaps they should present a smaller target <_<

[FJRider]

I never doubted you............. much.

Cunning way to cull the dole numbers whilst still paying for them, albeit not them getting paid :facepalm:

Who wouldn't believe me ... ???? :blink:

The name of the game is numbers ... numbers off the main unemployment figure. The various schemes that were run (and still are) reduce that number even more.

[mashman]

Where is it written ... that a drug test will be required for every job being applied for ... ??? I recall the word "May" even being mentioned at the start of the announcement. Some employers may not give a toss either way. With the 90 day trial period in law ... they have an "out" if they need one.

It is interesting that .... beneficiaries are being described (by beneficiaries) ... as being targeted ... perhaps they should present a smaller target <_<

T'was a response to husaberg where he was advocating that of he should be tested that everyone should be expected to be tested. Either way, I really don't much care for the "fines" that are going to be imposed. I'd hope that there are employers out there who'd see the policy as bullshit. True... good job that the employer has to keep the employee for 3 months (someone reported) before WINZ will give them the beneficiaries salary for the year.

Of course they would... even some none beneficiaries are saying the same thing and most likely for similar reasons. I'd rather they painted a larger target as it'll be interesting to see who's top of the list when it comes to clawing back lost earnings.

[FJRider]

Of course they would... even some none beneficiaries are saying the same thing and most likely for similar reasons. I'd rather they painted a larger target as it'll be interesting to see who's top of the list when it comes to clawing back lost earnings.

I have had real experience of being shot at. And they may have had their reasons for doing so. But I found making a smaller target increased my survival chances considerably ... and when shooting back ... use better ammunition than them. This reduces their desire to shoot at you ... considerably :woohoo:

[scumdog]

Behold the reason people feel the need to drug test Beneficiaries..........

Ya think??:killingme:rofl:

[scumdog]

lost earnings.

'earnings' - that and a beneficiery are mutually exclusive eh...<_<

[mashman]

I have had real experience of being shot at. And they may have had their reasons for doing so. But I found making a smaller target increased my survival chances considerably ... and when shooting back ... use better ammunition than them. This reduces their desire to shoot at you ... considerably :woohoo:

Aaaaand that makes perfect sense. However nature does things differently with the strength in numbers to ensure survival. Perhaps a hundred people v's 9 bullets would reduce the chances of a shot being fired at a ll?


'earnings' - that and a beneficiery are mutually exclusive eh...<_<

Let's see now. The govt pay beneficiaries which gives them money to live. I'd call it earnings, same as, say, ooo, I dunno, the same as the earnings that Police receive. I hope there's more of a brotherhood in the Police.

[Ocean1]

Let's see now. The govt pay beneficiaries which gives them money to live. I'd call it earnings

Which demonstrates nicely how fuckt up your ideas about earnings are. Earning it would mean that they'd actually, y'know; done some constructive work.

[mashman]

Which demonstrates nicely how fuckt up your ideas about earnings are. Earning it would mean that they'd actually, y'know; done some constructive work.

bwaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha haaaaaaaa... they have done something constructive, they have taken the position of unemployed person so that those who are more interested can take the position of working person. Allowing for thems who are interested to perfect economic balance

[oneofsix]

Who wouldn't believe me ... ???? :blink:

The name of the game is numbers ... numbers off the main unemployment figure. The various schemes that were run (and still are) reduce that number even more.

This must be why Burger King had to employ 650 overseas staff rather than Kiwi's. There must be so few unemployed in NZ capable of flipping burgers :facepalm: More likely it was that BK could run an upgraded sweet shop whereby if the imports complain they lose their job and have to leave the country, but it also allows them to force down the NZ wages so that the rest of NZ has to subsidize their wages and therefore BK's business.


As a condition of their work visas, workers sponsored by an employer can stay in New Zealand on the provision they remain in that job and could have to leave the country if they lose or leave it. That meant sponsored workers were less likely to agitate for better wages and conditions because they were dependent on the goodwill of their employers, Roche said. It also pushed down pay rates across the board.

"We've seen examples of that with Burger King, where newly arrived migrant workers have been working well in excess of 40 hours a week, have been told they are on a salary so effectively working for less than the minimum wage, and have pressure put on them to not join a union and not complain."

Next they will be using the threat of drug testing to blackmail their employees. Why don't they just try being good employers? because they are too self centered and self righteous.

Better ammo and better life style, join a gang. Works well in the good ol US of A except in NZ they seem better organised at making money instead of fighting each other.

:jerry:

[Ocean1]

bwaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha haaaaaaaa... they have done something constructive, they have taken the position of unemployed person so that those who are more interested can take the position of working person. Allowing for thems who are interested to perfect economic balance

Unemployment isn't a "position", it's the failure to obtain a position, and there's absolutely nothing constructive being done in exchange for the dole.

Unless you're producing something of tangable value in exchange for whatever income you get then you're taking it from someone else. Mostly me, as it happens.

[Madness]

Tinny houses don't run themselves ya know! :facepalm:

[mashman]

Unemployment isn't a "position", it's the failure to obtain a position, and there's absolutely nothing constructive being done in exchange for the dole.

Unless you're producing something of tangable value in exchange for whatever income you get then you're taking it from someone else. Mostly me, as it happens.

They get taxed on their income, so unemployment must be a position.

They're helping the govt to manage the inflation and interest rates. I'd say that was tangible and provides more of a service to the country as a whole than you do as an individual hogging wealth.

[Ocean1]

They get taxed on their income, so unemployment must be a position.

Using the same logic you could demonstrate that a tomatoe is a brick, because it's red.


They're helping the govt to manage the inflation and interest rates. I'd say that was tangible and provides more of a service to the country as a whole than you do as an individual hogging wealth.

They are not. They're detracting from the governmnet's revenue base, if you call that a "service" then it's one that represents negative value. As for hogging wealth: what wealth I have I earned, along with the right to do with it whatever I want.

Again: if you didn't earn what you have then it was taken from someone who did.

[FJRider]

This must be why Burger King had to employ 650 overseas staff rather than Kiwi's. There must be so few unemployed in NZ capable of flipping burgers :facepalm: More likely it was that BK could run an upgraded sweet shop whereby if the imports complain they lose their job and have to leave the country, but it also allows them to force down the NZ wages so that the rest of NZ has to subsidize their wages and therefore BK's business.


:jerry:

No ... it's the simple fact that kiwi's don't want to get out of bed to work for less than $15 an hour.

Minimum rate is not enough.

[FJRider]

Aaaaand that makes perfect sense. However nature does things differently with the strength in numbers to ensure survival. Perhaps a hundred people v's 9 bullets would reduce the chances of a shot being fired at a ll?

The trick is ... wait until a group is standing in line (or a group) and you can take 5 or 6 out with one bullet ... better ammunition (and cunning) remember. If you have the right weapon ... you can take out 30 or more if they are in a group. (with one shot)
You don't take a knife to a gun fight ...


Let's see now. The govt pay beneficiaries which gives them money to live. I'd call it earnings, same as, say, ooo, I dunno, the same as the earnings that Police receive. I hope there's more of a brotherhood in the Police.

Earnings are what you are paid to work for. Regardless of if you earn it ... or not.

Beneficiaries receive the benefit. Which is why they (you even) call them beneficiaries. It's called their entitlement. (there's a new word for you)

[mashman]

Using the same logic you could demonstrate that a tomatoe is a brick, because it's red.

They are not. They're detracting from the governmnet's revenue base, if you call that a "service" then it's one that represents negative value. As for hogging wealth: what wealth I have I earned, along with the right to do with it whatever I want.

Again: if you didn't earn what you have then it was taken from someone who did.

Fair enough.

And there are people who work that are negative tax providers. Does that make them tomato's or bricks? You mean what you are legally allowed to spend it on?

I fully understand what you are saying... but keeping inflation down is important isn't it? As well as spending the money that has been "stolen" from us wisely?

[mashman]

The trick is ... wait until a group is standing in line (or a group) and you can take 5 or 6 out with one bullet ... better ammunition (and cunning) remember. If you have the right weapon ... you can take out 30 or more if they are in a group. (with one shot)
You don't take a knife to a gun fight ...

Earnings are what you are paid to work for. Regardless of if you earn it ... or not.

Beneficiaries receive the benefit. Which is why they (you even) call them beneficiaries. It's called their entitlement. (there's a new word for you)

Good enough strategy. And wiping out half of the crowd will console you as the other half decide what to do with you?

Not according to Ocean. You have to earn it for it to be considered to be earnings.

Fair enough. Entitlement it is.

[FJRider]

Let's see now. The govt pay beneficiaries which gives them money to live. I'd call it earnings, same as, say, ooo, I dunno, the same as the earnings that Police receive. I hope there's more of a brotherhood in the Police.

The Inland Revenue call it INCOME. and tax it ... just as they tax YOUR income. Regardless of the fact of if you do ... or don't ... earn it.

[FJRider]

Good enough strategy. And wiping out half of the crowd will console you as the other half decide what to do with you?



Notice how the leaders of fighting groups stand at the back ... or well out of the way ... ?????

And morale takes a big part of a fight. And if those remaining think it's pointless to continue the fight ... :shifty:

[scumdog]

Let's see now. The govt pay beneficiaries which gives them money to live. I'd call it earnings, same as, say, ooo, I dunno, the same as the earnings that Police receive. I hope there's more of a brotherhood in the Police.

OK, I'll bite:

And the leeching beneficiaries (as opposed to the genuine ones) do WHAT to do this 'earning' thing you speak of?
Just the fact they exist ain't enough...

And don't call the benefit 'earnings' - its right up there with the criminal bozos that refer to their benefit as 'pay'

"No worries boss, I'll sort it out on pay-day" :angry:

[FJRider]

"No worries boss, I'll sort it out on pay-day" :angry:

Calling it "Benefit Day" just doesn't have the same ring to it as ... pay-day ... It's so demeaning ... :violin:

[mashman]

The Inland Revenue call it INCOME. and tax it ... just as they tax YOUR income. Regardless of the fact of if you do ... or don't ... earn it.

Another word in the book. Ta.


Notice how the leaders of fighting groups stand at the back ... or well out of the way ... ?????

And morale takes a big part of a fight. And if those remaining think it's pointless to continue the fight ... :shifty:

Or hide in places where you wouldn't normally find them?

Kinda pointless being there if you don't know what the fight is about... I'd be damn sure not to let someone who had murdered 54 or my comrades away with it iffen they had run out of ammo.


OK, I'll bite:

And the leeching beneficiaries (as opposed to the genuine ones) do WHAT to do this 'earning' thing you speak of?
Just the fact they exist ain't enough...

And don't call the benefit 'earnings' - its right up there with the criminal bozos that refer to their benefit as 'pay'

"No worries boss, I'll sort it out on pay-day" :angry:

The same as the non-leeching ones and oft with the same results :weird:

Have you asked why they refer to the benefit as 'pay'?

Boss? they have no boss?

[Akzle]

They get taxed on their income, so unemployment must be a position.
no.
not directly at any rate. it may be in the govt books as "taxed at source" but there are no payslips, no dole cheques (anymore) it's all done in the aether that is computer-banking. just turns up in the breeder's account so she doesn't even have to go to the bank/post office to get her "entitlement"...


They are not. They're detracting from the governmnet's revenue base, if you call that a "service"
... actually your government is contractually obliged (and you are obliged to them) to provide social security. end of. there are FAR greater drains on "the government's revenue base" than social welfare.
and if you don't like being the government's revenue base.. do something about it.

[scumdog]

The same as the non-leeching ones and oft with the same results :weird:

Have you asked why they refer to the benefit as 'pay'?



Then get the leeching ones to get off their lazy fat arses and do something other than hold out their hand (and/or commit crimes) - unlike the ones that really need the benfit.

And yes, I have asked that question.

The answer involved most of them looking down and shuffling their feet and saying "Aw, I just call it that" - and those ones were ones capable of working in the shearing sheds, at the freezing works, planting/pruning trees etc, maybe they screwed up when it came to school-work but they are fit and capable of working.

IF they wanted to.

And don't go quoting about 'no jobs' - down here there are jobs for those that want them...aiming to start off as Branch Manager probably inhibits a few though...:crazy:



(I must be gettin bored again, on here doing a 'ground-hog day' act be repeating stuff that's already been said and seeing the same four-five posters who are left-wing, Gov't sucks, we have the right, the masses will rise yadda-yadda-yaddaing away...)

Sheesh - I need a drink.

[FJRider]

Another word in the book. Ta.

KB is a great edumacational tool ... eh ... !!! :innocent:


Or hide in places where you wouldn't normally find them?

Kinda pointless being there if you don't know what the fight is about...

The same sort of people hide in the same sort of places. Understanding what the fight is about ... is the key to winning any battle.

What you are fighting for is a different matter. Same battle, different fighters, different reasons.

... and never take a knife to a gun-fight.

[husaberg]

Aware of what?

:rofl: ahhhh that makes perfect sense.

I think we all understand that. Does that mean we can have a referendum then?

Aware of the fact, that drug testing already happens.
Yeah i know just because i get drug tested why do the beneficiaries have to,
but its rather ironic that in order for me to earn i do yet the beneficiaries that receive the benefit (partly accrued from my tax generated) are so up in arms over that suggestion they will have too.

RE the referendum good luck getting the support with the petition.
From what i understand its actually one of National more popular policies.
Not hard to understand why given some of the rest give us the "Great opportunity" to buy something we already own:woohoo:

[mashman]

no.
not directly at any rate. it may be in the govt books as "taxed at source" but there are no payslips, no dole cheques (anymore) it's all done in the aether that is computer-banking. just turns up in the breeder's account so she doesn't even have to go to the bank/post office to get her "entitlement"...


I wonder if it's in the books as a "donation"... then they can claim a third back :blink:


Then get the leeching ones to get off their lazy fat arses and do something other than hold out their hand (and/or commit crimes) - unlike the ones that really need the benfit.

And yes, I have asked that question.

The answer involved most of them looking down and shuffling their feet and saying "Aw, I just call it that" - and those ones were ones capable of working in the shearing sheds, at the freezing works, planting/pruning trees etc, maybe they screwed up when it came to school-work but they are fit and capable of working.

IF they wanted to.

And don't go quoting about 'no jobs' - down here there are jobs for those that want them...aiming to start off as Branch Manager probably inhibits a few though...:crazy:


(I must be gettin bored again, on here doing a 'ground-hog day' act be repeating stuff that's already been said and seeing the same four-five posters who are left-wing, Gov't sucks, we have the right, the masses will rise yadda-yadda-yaddaing away...)

Sheesh - I need a drink.

Fuckin hell you made a post. I'm almost impressed by it too. Unfortunately they all need the benefit.

I agree that there's a gulf in regards to wanting to work and to a degree I accept that... but there are so many factors to take into consideration that I can see why there are those who don't want to work in a job that fits the "norm" and pays taxes... but that does not mean that they don't work for what they get, they work, but they are their own boss, or at least have a boss that let's them work the hours they choose as well as receiving a benefit. there are people who work "normal" jobs and still claim some form of benefit and iffen FJ's revelation (for me anyway) is true, businesses are also receiving the benefit. Oddly enough there are a few others in the country that do exactly the same thing and limit their tax liability. Ironic in ways.

:rofl:@left wing... you don't think it goes beyond political belief? Ok, I can understand that, but accept it, no. Not given half the shit that the "legal" "workers" pull. If it's going to happen anyway. Why fight it? Why not allow it happen to keep the costs of administering it down?


KB is a great edumacational tool ... eh ... !!! :innocent:

The same sort of people hide in the same sort of places. Understanding what the fight is about ... is the key to winning any battle.

What you are fighting for is a different matter. Same battle, different fighters, different reasons.

... and never take a knife to a gun-fight.

Yahaa.

Agreed.

Not if it's the same thing that you're fighting for. As long as the goal is shared, are you really going to care how you get there?

Guns run out of bullets.


Aware of the fact, that drug testing already happens.
Yeah i know just because i get drug tested why do the beneficiaries have to,
but its rather ironic that in order for me to earn i do yet the beneficiaries that receive the benefit (partly accrued from my tax generated) are so up in arms over that suggestion they will have too.

RE the referendum good luck getting the support with the petition.
From what i understand its actually one of National more popular policies.
Not hard to understand why given some of the rest give us the "Great opportunity" to buy something we already own:woohoo:

It's just one extra hurdle. How do you know they're gonna be dangerous/flakey/normal/homicidal until you've given them a go and overlooked the fact that instead of drinking, they do other stuff in their freetime to a level that doesn't impair their ability to function in everyday life? As I've said, I see no reason not to trust people who take drugs off the job, where they would otherwise be fully functioning employees... if people decided to take that attitude instead of the other one.

I'm not doubting it's aim. I'm doubting its necessity.

[short-circuit]

I'm not doubting it's aim. I'm doubting its necessity.


Whereas I question it's intention, it's necessity and it's efficacy....as well as the whole ideology that drives it.

[mashman]

Whereas I question it's intention, it's necessity and it's efficacy....as well as the whole ideology that drives it.

The bigger picture huh. Something that we'll never know... we'll only ever collect tin foil hats along the way. Some will be red, some will be green, some will slope left, a few to the right etc... :yawn:

[Ocean1]

Fair enough.

And there are people who work that are negative tax providers. Does that make them tomato's or bricks?

No surprises there, abour 55% of Kiwis represent a net drain on the public purse..


I fully understand what you are saying... but keeping inflation down is important isn't it? As well as spending the money that has been "stolen" from us wisely?

Yes, it is, but the unemployed have little to do with inflation.

Neither do they represent aprticularly good value for the tax dollar.

[FJRider]

Not if it's the same thing that you're fighting for. As long as the goal is shared, are you really going to care how you get there?

Guns run out of bullets.

If you fight the proposed drug testing on the grounds of some "abuse of rights" is one thing. To fight it on the grounds ... that you know the outcome of your first drug test will be a fail. Thus the loss of your entitlement ... is another.
Trying to achieve the same goal ... but for totally different reasons. The first for the benefit (excuse the pun) of many ... and the second the benefit (literally) of one.

Are their goals the same ... ???

To conserve your own ammo ... try to use the ammunition of the force you are fighting ... against them. (they don't like that)

[Akzle]

Neither do they represent aprticularly good value for the tax dollar.

because politicians do...?:blink:

[scumdog]

because politicians do...


:facepalm::rolleyes:

frikkin' windmill jousters....<_<

[mashman]

No surprises there, abour 55% of Kiwis represent a net drain on the public purse..

Yes, it is, but the unemployed have little to do with inflation.

Neither do they represent aprticularly good value for the tax dollar.

I guess that answers who's next.

If the unemployment rate affects interest rates and interest rates affect inflation, as my economic reading has lead me to believe so far, then the unemployed have a lot do with inflation.

Agreed. Best to leave them to their own devices then and try not to force them into corners where they may end up offering even less value for tax dollar?


If you fight the proposed drug testing on the grounds of some "abuse of rights" is one thing. To fight it on the grounds ... that you know the outcome of your first drug test will be a fail. Thus the loss of your entitlement ... is another.
Trying to achieve the same goal ... but for totally different reasons. The first for the benefit (excuse the pun) of many ... and the second the benefit (literally) of one.

Are their goals the same ... ???

To conserve your own ammo ... try to use the ammunition of the force you are fighting ... against them. (they don't like that)

They're two arguments that are fighting towards the same aim in terms of finding a solution to the issue. Some from the oh do catch me, of which part of my argument is based on, along with the abuse of rights issue, the someone telling you what you can't spend your money on issue and the fact, imho, that the policy it is more damaging (socially and financially) to the country than not. So many reasons, all requiring the same point of view to be accepted to make them non-issues anymore.

I'm bloody sure such an encounter isn't relished on any front.

[FJRider]

Yes, it is, but the unemployed have little to do with inflation.

Neither do they represent aprticularly good value for the tax dollar.

They do keep the money in circulation. They have to ... to survive. Thus do have an influence on inflation as consumers.

Few politicians need their salary to survive.

[husaberg]

Few politicians need their salary to survive.

But they are required to turn up to work occasionally...........

[FJRider]

They're two arguments that are fighting towards the same aim in terms of finding a solution to the issue. Some from the oh do catch me, of which part of my argument is based on, along with the abuse of rights issue, the someone telling you what you can't spend your money on issue and the fact, imho, that the policy it is more damaging (socially and financially) to the country than not. So many reasons, all requiring the same point of view to be accepted to make them non-issues anymore.

I'm bloody sure such an encounter isn't relished on any front.

There is only one "issue" ... and that is the so called abuse of rights. (which in my opinion is actually just only a change in policy)
The possible loss of entitlement is only a problem ... easily solved.


Only the group fighting the so called, abuse of rights ... will relish the fight. The others will sit at home and have a smoke ... and watch the battle unfold on TV.

[FJRider]

But they are required to turn up to work occasionally...........

:killingme

[Ocean1]

IIf the unemployment rate affects interest rates and interest rates affect inflation, as my economic reading has lead me to believe so far, then the unemployed have a lot do with inflation.

But it doesn't, not significantly.

[mashman]

There is only one "issue" ... and that is the so called abuse of rights. (which in my opinion is actually just only a change in policy)
The possible loss of entitlement is only a problem ... easily solved.

Only the group fighting the so called, abuse of rights ... will relish the fight. The others will sit at home and have a smoke ... and watch the battle unfold on TV.

Sorry, I was applying the law of common sense not the actual law to protect a financial position law. I guess it is that easy to change either way.

A binding referendum would be useful to avoid fighting at all. Isn't that how a democracy is supposed to work? but not paying the change lip service. Explain all sides of the argument. And up the stakes a little. The right to allow pre-testing v's the legalisation of Cannabis? Let's address the actual issue eh. You may find arses get off couches for that one.


But it doesn't, not significantly.

You'll be glad to hear that I won't go into in to the supply of money affecting interest rates and by default inflation rates and by default unemployment and back again. It matters enough to some.

[FJRider]

A binding referendum would be useful to avoid fighting at all. Isn't that how a democracy is supposed to work? but not paying the change lip service. Explain all sides of the argument. And up the stakes a little.

Referendums aren't worth a pinch of shit. Hoops to go through to get one ... wait for an election to hold one ... and if the result isn't liked by the party in power ... don't need to do anything at all. No binding responsibility to take ANY action. End of story ....
Remember the one we had to decide if MMP was to stay ... ??? remember the action the goverment took after it ... ????

If you don't remember ... there wasn't any.



The right to allow pre-testing v's the legalisation of Cannabis? Let's address the actual issue eh. You may find arses get off couches for that one.


Remember the golden rule ... The one's with the gold ... makes the rules. And NAH ... the couches will still be full ... if they could get off their arse's ... they'd have a job.

[husaberg]

Reasonable is mentioned a lot, we all know why. Hint there's two reasons for it:shutup:



Welfare Reforms—Pre-employment Drug Testing for Job Seekers
[Sitting date: 28 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4771. Text is subject to correction.]

6. MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements has she made to require those on benefits with work-test obligations to be ready and work available?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) : Today we have announced that—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not reasonable. There is no way I could hear the Minister’s answer with that noise.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Today we announced that from July 2013 beneficiaries with full or part-time work obligations will be sanctioned if they refuse job opportunities that require a drug test, or if they fail a drug test. Labour members can cry out, but for 9 long years they let beneficiaries sit on welfare with no tests whatsoever, and it is acceptable to them for those people to sit there and have recreational drug-use and not actually have any obligations under that.

Mike Sabin: What evidence is there to point to the fact that drug use is a barrier for those on benefits seeking work?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: There is no doubt that we have a problem with recreational drug-use in New Zealand. Ministry of Health research shows that around 20 percent of beneficiaries use drugs at least once a week, and that those receiving an unemployment benefit were around three times more likely to be regular cannabis users than those not on welfare, yet over 40 percent of the jobs we are asking beneficiaries to apply for require a drug test. At the end of the day, I believe that the majority of the New Zealand public shares the very reasonable expectation that people do not let their illegal recreational drug-use get in the way of a job.

Mike Sabin: How will this policy change support greater employment opportunities for those on benefit?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Requiring beneficiaries to be work-ready, available, and drug-free will certainly improve employment opportunities, giving greater confidence to employers to take them on. Many employers have publicly stated that they have problems recruiting people off benefits and into work because of their recreational drug-use. This is particularly prevalent in industries like forestry and construction, and, unfortunately, particularly in regions like the member’s own Northland, and the East Coast and the central North Island.


Social Development Minister Paula Bennett said about 40 per cent of the jobs listed at Work and Income required drug testing. "It's reasonable for employers to expect people to be drug free."


Bennett said beneficiaries would face sanctions if they refused to apply for drug-tested jobs. Under the current system an unemployment beneficiary can decline without penalty to apply for an available drug-tested job because they won't pass the test.


"Recreational drug use is simply not an acceptable excuse for avoiding available work. Thousands of working New Zealanders are in jobs requiring they be clean of drugs; it's reasonable to expect someone looking for work to do the same."


Drug testing only applied to those with a work expectation attached to their benefit and only for jobs requiring drug tests.
Those who failed tests would be given a warning and reasonable period of time to stop using drugs before having to take another drug test, Bennett said.
However, if beneficiaries refused to apply for a drug tested job, they had to agree to stop using drugs or their benefit would be cut by 50 per cent. They would be given 30 days to allow any drugs they had taken to leave their system.



If they failed a test or refused a second time, they would have their benefit suspended until they agreed to provide a 'clean' drug test within 30 days. If they did not do this their benefit would be cancelled.
Bennett said people with addiction would get help with their dependency and those on some prescribed medications would be exempt.

[scumdog]

:facepalm::rolleyes:

frikkin' windmill jousters....<_<

Got me:

Thread: Welfare support and...

'PENIS'

:woohoo::laugh::rofl::lol:

Guess who?????