Welfare support and drug testing

[mashman]

June 4th is tax free day for yer average kiwi, we've worked from Jan 1st until then to pay tax. Me, I'm still paying this years tax.

So I'm glad you feel it's unfair to make people work if they don't want to. Next year I'm choosing to pay tax until just May. There won't be enough tax to cover those who choose not to work at all. Sorry.

go for it big man. No need to apologise, it's entirely your choice.

[Maki]

My eyes are open and I have accepted certain truths, some of them are good for the economy and that requires that some of the population need to be unemployed.

Very interesting. Thanks for your honesty.

[mashman]

Very interesting. Thanks for your honesty.

Good luck with that new perspective you have

[scumdog]

My eyes are open and I have accepted certain truths, some of them are good for the economy and that requires that some of the population need to be unemployed.

No problem with that.

As long as you are refering to the infirm, the crippled and other less fortunate.

And not to lazy leeches who chose not to work but are happy to put their hand out for the rest of their lives.

[mashman]

As long as you are refering to the infirm, the crippled and other less fortunate.

And not to lazy leeches who chose not to work but are happy to put their hand out for the rest of their lives.

I'd rather not go after the fucktards (yes plenty of them are, some are career beneficiaries that are very smart individuals) if it means that the infirm, crippled and other less fortunate get caught in the cross fire... ESPECIALLY not when it's for something as trivial as having recently smoked a joint, and ESPECIALLY not when it's for votes, which it is. Smart individuals scamming at the bottom and smart individuals scamming at the top, no contest as to who is worse and there's absolutely no difference between the two other than the $$$ they scam. Vilifying those who have less because they buy drugs is pathetic and is about as backwards as supposedly intelligent human beings can be.

[Maki]

Now that we have established that you believe there is a certain proportion of the population that needs to be unemployed, is there something you would like to do about it? any targeted policies?

Encourage them to have kids?
Give them an added benefit for each new child?
Discourage them from having kids?
Give them a free transistor radio if they agree to be sterilized?
Give them free contraception?
Give them cheap or free drugs to discourage crime?
Educate them?
Ignore them?
Offer them work?

Any other ideas?

Are you a Nazi?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I still hold the view that we are all born equal but inequality arises from the assumptions we make. If we assume that people of a certain origin will achieve poorer outcomes than people of some other origins we are paving the path towards making our assumptions come true. If we assume that some person is not fit to be part of the work force and pay them a benefit for not working, then we are making sure that this person will probably never become productive part of the workforce. You believe that this person is not fit to be employed and soon enough that person will agree with you. Was this person useless to begin with or did you make them useless with your assumptions and your handouts?

If you don't believe our assumptions and the way we treat groups of people affect their outcomes, have a read:

"No group has been more "helped" by the American government than American Indians. Yet no group in America does worse."

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/st...he-freeloaders

And

"No group has been more "helped" by the American government than American Indians. Yet no group in America does worse.Almost a quarter of Native Americans live in poverty. 66 percent are born to single mothers. They have short life spans. Indian activists say the solution is -- surprise -- more money from the government. But Washington already spends about $13 billion on programs for Indians every year. There are special programs in 20 different Departments and Agencies: Empowering Tribal Nations Initiative, Advancing Nation to Nation Relationships, Protecting Indian Country, Improving Trust Land Management, New Energy Frontier Initiative, Climate Change Adaptation Initiative, Construction, Improving Trust Management, Tribal Priority Allocations, Resolving Land and Water Claims, Indian Land Consolidation Program. This is just a partial list. But that's still not enough for Indian activists.


In my Fox News Special "Freeloaders" , Elizabeth Homer, who used to be the U.S. Interior Department’s Director of American Indian Trust, argues the government must do more. I say government already does too much. Indians would be better off without government handouts. I have evidence: tribes not recognized by the federal government, tribes that get no special help, often do better. Members of the Lumbee tribe from Robeson County, NC, own their own homes. They succeed in business. Lumbee tribe members include real estate developer Jim Thomas, who used to own the Sacramento Kings. Lumbee Jack Lowery helped start the Cracker Barrel Restaurants. Lumbees started the first Indian owned bank, which now has 12 branches. The political class doesn't understand that its independence, not government management, that allows people to prosper. Congressman Mike McIntyre (D-NC) is pushing a bill called the Lumbee Recognition Act. This bill would give the Lumbees the same "help" that other tribes get. That would give the Lumbees about $80 million a year. "We shouldn't take it!" says Lumbee Ben Chavis, another successful businessman. Chavis says not getting any handouts is what makes his tribe successful, and if the federal money starts coming, members of his tribe "are going to become welfare cases. Its going to stifle creativity. We don’t need the government giving us handouts.""

http://www.huntingtonnews.net/2795

[wharekura]

How about a poll? No need - I am right, and everyone agrees

[mashman]

Now that we have established that you believe there is a certain proportion of the population that needs to be unemployed, is there something you would like to do about it? any targeted policies?

Encourage them to have kids?
Give them an added benefit for each new child?
Discourage them from having kids?
Give them a free transistor radio if they agree to be sterilized?
Give them free contraception?
Give them cheap or free drugs to discourage crime?
Educate them?
Ignore them?
Offer them work?

Any other ideas?

Are you a Nazi?

I believe it because the RBNZ uses unemployment as one mechanism for helping to manage inflation, it is totally and utterly unavoidable without making your $ worth less. My targeted policy would target everyone in the country irrespective of age, gender, IQ, ethnicity etc... and it would level the playing field properly, not just lip service to the idea of equity. In the current financial situation, I'd ignore them and I'd offer them work... No to pretty much everything else on your list, other than Education. In the short term I'd legalise cannabis using the existing supply chain, which would remove some people from the dole and into employment by default (amongst other things).

I'm not a Nazi, I'm from the place where they bombed our chippy's. As for other ideas, yes, many of them, but most of them are unattainable under financial system.

[mashman]

How about a poll? No need - I am right, and everyone agrees

Not everyone, but most... which is exceptionally sad given that we're supposed to be smart sheeple.

[wharekura]

You do agree mashyman - with all your waffle, you agree.

[mashman]

You do agree mashyman - with all your waffle, you agree.

With what? To what? If it's anything to do with things going in where there should only be things coming out then no.

[Maki]

Thanks again, mash.

I have been living in NZ for 10 years and I like most things here. There are one or two things that irritate me though. One of them is the obsession with ethnicity. Why does a child have to be asked about their ethnicity when they start school in this country? Why does the question of ethnicity keep cropping up in all sorts of questionnaires? We need to get over it and start treating people like people but not Maori, Pacifica, Asian, Pakeha, etc. NZ is very close to being a racist society.

With respect to using unemployment to control inflation you might say it is a way to keep wages down. By having a higher supply than demand of laborers you can control the wages and therefore inflation. If there are more jobs than workers employers will have to start paying more and at the same time charge more for their services and products and that of course is inflation.

It is a shame because I think having a meaningful job gives a person purpose and dignity.

[mashman]

Thanks again, mash.

I have been living in NZ for 10 years and I like most things here. There are one or two things that irritate me though. One of them is the obsession with ethnicity. Why does a child have to be asked about their ethnicity when they start school in this country? Why does the question of ethnicity keep cropping up in all sorts of questionnaires? We need to get over it and start treating people like people but not Maori, Pacifica, Asian, Pakeha, etc. NZ is very close to being a racist society.

With respect to using unemployment to control inflation you might say it is a way to keep wages down. By having a higher supply than demand of laborers you can control the wages and therefore inflation. If there are more jobs than workers employers will have to start paying more and at the same time charge more for their services and products and that of course is inflation.

It is a shame because I think having a meaningful job gives a person purpose and dignity.

I agree with all of that, even the meaningful job bit... but the meaningful job has to be meaningful to the person doing it. The problem with that is we need to do things very differently, but where money is king, it'll never happen and to a certain degree that's why I "defend" the unemployed from mandatory testing where they aren't exactly rolling in $$$.

[Brian d marge]

quite easy. stop being "employed". operate cash only. dont talk to the government. return their letters unopened. do not vote.

look up "notice of understanding and intent and claim or right" (NuI, CoR) read through one five or six times. you'll get the point.

notice of understanding and intent and claim or right" (NuI, CoR)

ohh thats a goodie , didnt a guy called spooner , do something similar back in the 1800 google ..yes Lysander spooner , Im not so sure about the cash thing , practical but I want to Felicity kendals arse in a tight pair of jeans , first thing in the morning ,,,,foooaarrr

Stephen

[jasonu]

Does the amount and quality of work a person does exclude them from being tested? I ask as employers could lose valuable members of staff because they had a smoke the night before.

No, there are no exceptions. You do a pre employment UA and are fully imformed of the random drug testing policy so there is no excuse. I have seen a couple of long time employees get the boot because of failing the UA (urine analasis) test. Failing the test doesn't necessarily mean the automatic boot. On the 1st offence the company can opt to have the employee do counciling. Depends on the employee involved and what he tested positive for. Our company uses an outside agency to conduct the tests for opiates, pot, narcotics, and drugs such as meth.