Welfare support and drug testing

[mashman]

err.......Got sick of waiting and answered it my self anyway.

I prefer my answers ... It would be reasonable to accept that some people just won't work, the reason for their decision shouldn't really matter. The basis for that reasoning would be that there aren't enough jobs to go around. It's a beat up, that's the reason for this policy.

I agree that in an ideal world where drugs, were really as bad as people say they are, that people would be tested before they went for a job... but the reality is something entirely different. Dicks will be dicks whether it's booze or drugs and unfortunately some of those people will do these things at work. NOTHING will prevent that (it happens, even in industry's that test). The mitigation being put forwards for your approval misses that FACT entirely. There is no reason for this policy.

[sootie]

What do you think of Gareth Morgan's idea of giving every citizen a basic subsistence allowance? If you want to do more than exist, then you have to earn more by working at something. Part of the attraction here is that it keeps crime down.

[mashman]

What do you think of Gareth Morgan's idea of giving every citizen a basic subsistence allowance? If you want to do more than exist, then you have to earn more by working at something. Part of the attraction here is that it keeps crime down.

They already receive one don't they? The benefit. Is he expecting drug testing to be a condition in regards to how much "subsistence" a person will receive? No doubt some beneficiaries already work to top up their salary... it may not be tax paying work, it may not even be legal work, but they're doing something... it's just not the social norm... so I can't see it keeping crime down either. Removing the financial system entirely would allow people to "exist" as well as drastically reducing crime. But alas, it seems that we are doomed to be led in the direction of financial solutions to financial problems.

It's as good as his ideas on ACC

[oneofsix]

They already receive one don't they? The benefit. Is he expecting drug testing to be a condition in regards to how much "subsistence" a person will receive? No doubt some beneficiaries already work to top up their salary... it may not be tax paying work, it may not even be legal work, but they're doing something... it's just not the social norm... so I can't see it keeping crime down either. Removing the financial system entirely would allow people to "exist" as well as drastically reducing crime. But alas, it seems that we are doomed to be led in the direction of financial solutions to financial problems.

It's as good as his ideas on ACC

As I understand Garth's idea you me and John Key, oh and of course Garth himself, all receive the allowance. This is your base NZ living allowance and income is over and above this. If you get sick, injured, unemployed or over age this basic allowance is all you get, if you want more work or (probably Garth's favourite) invest for it.

Sounds more of what has gone wrong with the pension, instead of the wealthy giving back some to those that worked at the lower levels they now all have their hands in the pot, the wealthy more so than the middle class, and even more reason for the life style beneficiaries not to get motivated, the best they can hope for is middle class and we all know that they are the worst abused, work the hardest and pay the most and do the least dodging.

[Akzle]

Well I guess this thread continues to prove my theory that stoners have an overwhelming need to impose their point of view on others, regardless of how idiotic it is.

uhh. whut? it's not the stoners imposing drug testing on everyone else...(nor specifically targeting beneficiaries/politicians.) (drug testing to ensure there are trace levels of drugs in their systems, of course...)

Why dont you stoners just start your own businesses & then you can have a job with no drug testing. That would be an awesome idea, instead of relying on others for a hand out, while you turn your brains into clearly what appears to be fuck all.

i did. have you seen the hole i dug?
as far as [a stoner] turning their mind to "fuckall" - the above has been you longest and most sensible contribution to this forum. all the while avoiding stating a position or backing it up with any kind of reason or fact.
i think you'll find, by and large, people who take drugs recreationally, spend a lot more time thinking about shit.

...they now all have their hands in the pot, the wealthy more so than the middle class... the best they can hope for is middle class and we all know that they are the worst abused, work the hardest and pay the most and do the least dodging.

and better yet, arguing with each other/smokers/gays/jews/beneficiaries etc, while keeping thier eyes resolutely averted from the root of whate'er the problem may be.
it's the modern (western) condition - treat the symptom, not the disease. because there is no money in the cure. because when you've taken the pills and alleviated your pain, you can get back to "being a productive member of society"

[mashman]

As I understand Garth's idea you me and John Key, oh and of course Garth himself, all receive the allowance. This is your base NZ living allowance and income is over and above this. If you get sick, injured, unemployed or over age this basic allowance is all you get, if you want more work or (probably Garth's favourite) invest for it.

Sounds more of what has gone wrong with the pension, instead of the wealthy giving back some to those that worked at the lower levels they now all have their hands in the pot, the wealthy more so than the middle class, and even more reason for the life style beneficiaries not to get motivated, the best they can hope for is middle class and we all know that they are the worst abused, work the hardest and pay the most and do the least dodging.

Ahhhh that makes more sense... ta. Garths world, Garths world, party time excellent brrew brrrrrew brrrrrewwwwwww. Good job none of us has any special requirements, especially those who are sick or injured. Does it come with health, dental and travel expense cover? Perhaps a wee drug allowance, or at least a get out of jail free card to grow our own? Soooooooo there's no change for those who receive a benefit for whatever circumstance. I fail to see the point in it.

[mashman]

and better yet, arguing with each other/smokers/gays/jews/beneficiaries etc, while keeping thier eyes resolutely averted from the root of whate'er the problem may be.
it's the modern (western) condition - treat the symptom, not the disease. because there is no money in the cure. because when you've taken the pills and alleviated your pain, you can get back to "being a productive member of society"

oh fer fooksake... put the tin foil hat away man and keep your excuses to yourself.

[FJRider]

i think you'll find, by and large, people who take drugs recreationally, spend a lot more time talking shit.

There ... fixed it for you. You smoke a lot ... obviously .... !!!

[Ocean1]

I prefer my answers ... It would be reasonable to accept that some people just won't work, the reason for their decision shouldn't really matter. The basis for that reasoning would be that there aren't enough jobs to go around.

I guess I'd preffer your answers too, if I was delusional.

You're right about one thing, it doesn't matter why those who won't work choose that course. And reasonable? ask those that pay for it what's reasonable. It'd be entirely reasonable to expect that those that just won't work man up to the consequences of that decision and pay for their own holiday.

As for the not enough jobs thing? You keep trundling that out, it's bullshit, the sort of last ditched excuse one might expect from one of the "won't work" types. There's no grand financial conspiricy running around killing work opportunities, there's plenty of work out there if the work will get done reliably and well, and if it earns more than the cost of the wages. It's as simple as that.

Dicks will be dicks whether it's booze or drugs and unfortunately some of those people will do these things at work. NOTHING will prevent that (it happens, even in industry's that test). The mitigation being put forwards for your approval misses that FACT entirely. There is no reason for this policy.

You've had another wee turn, haven't you? The dicks the policy is aimed at aren't at work. They don't work. And I'd say that non-working dicks spending handouts on drugs is all the reason the policy needs. As for nothing stopping the drugs thing? That's your cue to roll out the threats again, innit? We'll all be slaughtered in our beds by the nasty addict looking for funds. Bring it on.

[Akzle]

...
As for the not enough jobs thing? You keep trundling that out, it's bullshit, the sort of last ditched excuse one might expect from one of the "won't work" types. There's no grand financial conspiricy running around killing work opportunities, there's plenty of work out there

i take it you'll be the one proponing this "ineptocracy" mantra?

no. there actually is not enough work for everyone, as it is.
even if they rolled out a work for benefit scheme (which i reckon they should) they wouldn't have the work.
(not to mention the amount of free labor that's sitting in prison doing SFA. and they come at a cost 5 or 6 times greater than your average "unemployed" person.)

don't get me wrong, there's plenty to be done. but the jobs aren't there.
the grand financial conspiracy is not killing jobs, but it sure as shit aint making any, and the quest for money has overtaken any more humble, sensible quests the human breed should be aiming for.

[husaberg]

I prefer my answers ...

Ok i understand you might, but i believe mine are closer to what most people actually think, hense the popularity of the policy.....(Not with beneficiaries obviously) but with the other 90%

It would be reasonable to accept that some people just won't work,

Disagree with you there Mashy, as it is not reasonable, not to work, when there is work available, when on the unemployment benefit. They should all be willing to work surely? Either that, or withdraw the support.

I agree that in an ideal world where drugs, were really as bad as people say they are, that people would be tested before they went for a job... but the reality is something entirely different. Dicks will be dicks whether it's booze or drugs and unfortunately some of those people will do these things at work. NOTHING will prevent that (it happens, even in industry's that test). The mitigation being put forwards for your approval misses that FACT entirely. There is no reason for this policy.

Problem ,most i agree with (not all and not to the extent)But we never will so who cares
The reason for the policy.
With regards to you saying there is no reason. The major hurdle you face with that argument is the industry.
wants to test and so does the government. So that's all the reason they need.

[scumdog]

You're all boring me again...

[scissorhands]

All these well meaning/ill informed white knights running around pointing guns at windmills... while your all fighting amongst yourselves the real gold is being looted.... fools gold.....

[Ocean1]

there actually is not enough work for everyone, as it is.

You seem to be having as much trouble reading other peoples posts as I have with yours.

As I said, if the expected wages matches the commercial income available to a business from that work then there is plenty of work for anyone that wants it.

Read slowly, it'll come.

[Ocean1]

You're all boring me again...

I'm sure you can hold out until the annual Burt fang, can't ya mate?