Welfare support and drug testing

[bogan]

You wana bludgeon 'em?

Maybe tax payers could earn points they can spend on bludgeoning who they choose; but this time, you could also exchange those points for pies, made by the bludgers with talent, win-win isn't it!

[oneofsix]

Alright, bigger picture solution, unemployed are now applying for so many jobs it makes it hard for employers to do the initial screening. Past employment performance is also hard to access. How about creating a website to keep track of the 'bludgers' and their activities relating to trying to find work. Add other nefarious activities like failing or not taking drug tests, or having kids. And we could call it FaceBludger

Where is the advantage in that? Presently the solution is to use employment consultants to whittle down the applicants before they get to the employer. This creates new jobs for consultant type peoples without producing anything useful for the country. Win Win, right?

[ducatilover]

Maybe tax payers could earn points they can spend on bludgeoning who they choose; but this time, you could also exchange those points for pies, made by the bludgers with talent, win-win isn't it!

VOTE FOR BOGAN!

[skippa1]

Some of them do, some grow veges for all their friends families too. Some of them create art, and donate it to public spaces, some even auction their work for charity. Some have built some of the most sophisticated systems in their chosen fields that I've ever seen. You're confused about smoking weed and abusing weed... that and a bit narrow minded, but such is the many shades of life.

pray tell what percentage of the unemployed population create this mass of art? By the way, dont believe everything the switched on gardner tells you, theyre not tomatoes.
You mention those that have excelled in the chosen profesion, I speak only about those that I sponsor, I dont give a fuck about those that smoke drugs and work(not at the same time mind you). As long as they dont harm anyone or put them at risk at work I dont care about them.
In my view, those that are unemployed sitting at home smoking weed at my cost are abusing it because they dont have the right to make that choice at the communities cost.
By the way, I have seen some of the art and it is impressive, wouldnt want it on my building but hey, if you dont give a fuck and it enhances your life experience all good, get them to do your building.

[oneofsix]

VOTE FOR BOGAN!

Your self employed role isn't going to be a baker I hope or do we call you Mr Todd?

[bogan]

Where is the advantage in that? Presently the solution is to use employment consultants to whittle down the applicants before they get to the employer. This creates new jobs for consultant type peoples without producing anything useful for the country. Win Win, right?

Well if it is something that can very easily be done via facebludger, aren't people paying the consultants to do fuck all? Isn't that what has people annoyed in the first place, paying bludgers to do fuck all?

Creating jobs is bullshit, creating/increasing production is a worthy goal but harder to measure. Using the consultants as an example, you have market driven competition between them and the fictional automated facebludger service, the viability of the consultants depends on them providing a better service (and therefor increasing production) to buisnesses; if they don't, does it matter whther they are paid dircetly from buisnesses for doing the work, or through the dole for doing fuck all.

The bludger argument often comes down to a narrow scope which assumes that forcing them to work will benefit the economy. Benefits will only be realised if they are put to work in the right sort of jobs. BTW, I'm not some 'bludger' sympathizer, and I reckon sterilization of long term beneficiaries should be mandatory.

[ducatilover]

Your self employed role isn't going to be a baker I hope or do we call you Mr Todd?

I'm going to manufacture methamphetamine and sell it to rich kids

[imdying]

pray tell what percentage of the unemployed population create this mass of art?

If you're expecting every sector of society to contribute equally or at all, then you're only setting yourself up for a life of disappointment. I mean, I likely pay more in tax than you even make in a year, does that give me the right to tell you when and where about anything?

[oneofsix]

I'm going to manufacture methamphetamine and sell it to rich kids

good luck with that. a great way to get the trickle down flowing.

[ducatilover]

good luck with that. a great way to get the trickle down flowing.

Thanks mate, interested in buying some lamingtons?

[Oscar]

Down to? That you think that there are levels based on something as trivial as that is truly saddening.

I was thinking some sort of slug or mollusc kinda thing...

[Gremlin]

It's much easier than this. Do not pay a benefit at all, into their bank account.

They would receive x amount (but not actually receive any money). Their rent is dealt with automatically, same with essentials like power and water. For food, an account is available at the local supermarket, restricted to non-luxury items (ie, no alcohol, cigarettes etc). The govt should receive good pricing from the supermarket because of the bulk buying and customer base. Accounts could easily be setup for various requirements, but naturally you'd have one supplier per requirement, not every single supplier. Completely possible a small amount is supplied for discretionary reasons, but all the staples are taken care of.

Too many have forgotten that a benefit is to help you get back onto your feet when you experience some hardship. The money comes from those that are working. It is not your right to do whatever you like with that money. If you want choice, earn your own money. In the old days, if you kept sponging off everyone's goodwill without contributing, you'd be run out of town.

[Oscar]

Looks like Mashman needs that sarcasm/irony emoticon.

See above - those sort of complex emotions are several million years in the future for his species...

[skippa1]

I mean, I likely pay more in tax than you even make in a year, does that give me the right to tell you when and where about anything?

I wouldnt be so sure of myself about that if I were you....of course your penis is far bigger than mine. Im not getting into a pissing competition about income but I sit nicely in the upper 10% thanks very much so my tax contribution is more than sufficient.
and yes, the tax payer does have a right to tell the government what we expect. And in this case they have listened and see merit in the whole idea.

Dont trip over your dick

[skippa1]

It's much easier than this. Do not pay a benefit at all, into their bank account.

They would receive x amount (but not actually receive any money). Their rent is dealt with automatically, same with essentials like power and water. For food, an account is available at the local supermarket, restricted to non-luxury items (ie, no alcohol, cigarettes etc). The govt should receive good pricing from the supermarket because of the bulk buying and customer base. Accounts could easily be setup for various requirements, but naturally you'd have one supplier per requirement, not every single supplier. Completely possible a small amount is supplied for discretionary reasons, but all the staples are taken care of.

Too many have forgotten that a benefit is to help you get back onto your feet when you experience some hardship. The money comes from those that are working. It is not your right to do whatever you like with that money. If you want choice, earn your own money. In the old days, if you kept sponging off everyone's goodwill without contributing, you'd be run out of town.