So, I talked to 3rd-generation welfare dependants overnight about their problem

[jasonu]

which achieves what?

If you have enough time and money to buy and ingest illegal drugs then no benefit for you.
Many employers insist on the same thing with piss tests. Fail the test=no job.

[Banditbandit]

Many employers insist on the same thing with piss tests. Fail the test=no job.

You mean if I can't piss I don't get the job ???

[TheDemonLord]

All you have to do in order to find out is ask those who arrive at WINZ. You'll already have them at the desk, a simple question is all it would take?

You are forgetting the rest of the population who would rather not work given the choice (but do because working provides them the means to do the things they want)

Show me how it is a false dichotomy? Coz when you have less Y you don't need so much X and can potentially re-task that X to a place that has more Y than it knows what to do with.

Y is a Constant - it represents the minimum acceptable level of service in a Society.

Fucking brilliant... corporate world v's the life of a doley ... one stealing billions and the others between them not even being able to match that. Comparing Monkey Shit and Apples there strawman.

Stealing is Stealing - whether it is Mr CEO stealing billions or Mr Dole Bludger Stealing Billions in Welfare payments from my hard earned taxes.

As a side note - at least the CEO works and provides others with employment and pays Tax (both personal and Corporate), so they are mildly less of a cretin than those that refuse to work

Financial credibility? bwaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. You'd have been better served by asking where thirdly went. You always have to rob Peter to pay Paul. That you don't recognise that this practice currently goes on today, and with the education budget, renders any outcomes that you have "calculated" moot. A 100% margin for error does not good sense make

Again, we have been through this, the flow of Money does not involve the robbing of anyone, not that you will agree of course.....

[mashman]

You are forgetting the rest of the population who would rather not work given the choice (but do because working provides them the means to do the things they want)

Am I?... coz I seem to remember taking that sort of thing into consideration.

Y is a Constant - it represents the minimum acceptable level of service in a Society.

A society that doesn't change then?

Stealing is Stealing - whether it is Mr CEO stealing billions or Mr Dole Bludger Stealing Billions in Welfare payments from my hard earned taxes.

As a side note - at least the CEO works and provides others with employment and pays Tax (both personal and Corporate), so they are mildly less of a cretin than those that refuse to work

... One does infinitesimally more damage than the other, and you're happy to let that bit slide because the morality is the same? They did teach you well didn't they.

And you describe the lore of the jungle quite well there. As long as you're earning lots of money, you get to do what you want because you can't be thrown in jail given your positive economic status. Stella argument for allowing environmental rape and war etc...

Again, we have been through this, the flow of Money does not involve the robbing of anyone, not that you will agree of course.....

The flow of money we're talking about does in the context I thought we were talking about it under... at least that was your opening gambit. So, which is it?

Was that you proving the false dichotomy? Or just gonna ignore that bit?

[jasonu]

You mean if I can't piss I don't get the job ???

Yep. Refuse the test and risk getting canned or not getting the job at all.

[Madness]

You mean if I can't piss I don't get the job ???

Don't worry, it's probably just a piss-take.

[Akzle]

For example it would be good to know the limits of the Human body in order to help Trauma teams - but the cost of finding out.....

well you can thank adolf, who undertook a lot of that for you.

Now.... If only there was a suitable test population we could use nowdays...

If you have enough time and money to buy and ingest illegal drugs then no benefit for you.

so, just to be clear, legal ones are ok?

Many employers insist on the same thing with piss tests. Fail the test=no job.

yes. Well, thats a bit hen and chicken isnt it. Choose to smoke weed (because really, that's all thats tested for) and you become unemployable. been working real good for ages.

Stealing is Stealing - whether it is Mr CEO stealing billions or Mr Dole Bludger Stealing Billions in Welfare payments from my hard earned taxes.

i think youll find whilst the former certainly is billions, the latter is relative pocket change. Millions or hundreds of.

As a side note - at least the CEO works and provides others with employment and pays Tax (both personal and Corporate), so they are mildly less of a cretin than those that refuse to work.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha pay tax. You nigger. Noone got rich by giving jewgold to the government

[Banditbandit]

Don't worry, it's probably just a piss-take.

[TheDemonLord]

well you can thank adolf, who undertook a lot of that for you.

GODWIN!

(I'm so glad someone got my veiled reference and broke Godwins law)

i think youll find whilst the former certainly is billions, the latter is relative pocket change. Millions or hundreds of.

Would be interesting to see what (for a financial year) was (in NZ) the cost of Corporate theft/dodginess and compare to the cost of our Welfare system - my gut tells me that the difference may not be as drastic as you think.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha pay tax. You nigger. Noone got rich by giving jewgold to the government

Tax Avoidance is completely fine IMO

[Akzle]

[ e v e r y t h i n g] is completely fine IMO

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vx5n21zHPm8


...nigger.

[Akzle]

also

[RDJ]

You mean if I can't piss I don't get the job ???

One has to wonder whether your question was serious, but in effect, yes; there are very many jobs - and this mandatory for offshore work - that require people pass and keep passing drug tests. The drugged/intoxicated can cause enormous damage not just to themselves, but others. Even the appearance of risk due to intoxication or drug-taking can cause major problems for employers, so why would they risk that eventuality by not testing... Think, Exxon Valdez and the captain thereof, immortalised forever in 'Waterworld' as eulogized by Dennis Hopper's character...

[TheDemonLord]

Am I?... coz I seem to remember taking that sort of thing into consideration.

well, you said 50% in your original estimate, then you said that to test your hypothesis you could ask the people at WINZ - which is ignoring the rest of the currently working population (as in, the WINZ clientel are not a representative sample of NZ society)

A society that doesn't change then?

You know my thoughts on this - We are still killing each other over whose imaginary friend is better, we still have tribal warfare (only with bigger tribes and fully automatic weaponary) - I know you think Society changes, but to me - the more things change, the more it stays the same

... One does infinitesimally more damage than the other, and you're happy to let that bit slide because the morality is the same? They did teach you well didn't they.

One also contributes infinitely more to society, (hint - it isn't the dole Blodgers)

And you describe the lore of the jungle quite well there. As long as you're earning lots of money, you get to do what you want because you can't be thrown in jail given your positive economic status. Stella argument for allowing environmental rape and war etc...

No, I don't think I do - The law of the Jungle is survival of the fittest/strongest - from the Oxford dictionary "usually with reference to the superiority of brute force or self-interest in the struggle for survival"

This is actually a subtly different area (one with much larger grey area) - one where the net benefit to society as a whole is great enough to justify leniency - Note, that I don't always subscribe to this theory - only using it to counterpoint one who steals from society, but provides a great number of beneficial side effects compared to one who steals from society and contributes nothing.

The flow of money we're talking about does in the context I thought we were talking about it under... at least that was your opening gambit. So, which is it?

My Apologies - I mistook what you were referencing. In that case at a rudimentary and overly simplistic level, any form of Taxation or benefits is robbing Paul to pay Peter - however when you factor in Society, it becomes more complex:

I pay my taxes, and with it, the Govt builds a Motorway that I use everyday - Is that robbing Paul to pay Peter? or is it providing something that is beneficial to all of Society?

More Abstract example:

I pay my Taxes and schools get funded, people get Educated, I've already got my education so this is of no use to me right? - I disagree, an educated population is vastly beneficial to all of society (compare the leaps we made in the western world from the 1800s when education became compulsory) - this indirectly provides numerous benefits to me.

Even more Abstract (and to the discussion at hand)

I pay my Taxes and someone's Dole gets Funded. Now assuming that this is a stop gap between them loosing a job and gaining another one - I do not begrudge my taxes going towards this - the Benefit to society to keep someone supported till they can find another job is great. However you may notice the Caveat - till they can find another job. That is the only reason they should get a benefit is so that when they re-enter the workforce they are fed, clothed and healthy (ready to work), if they have no intention of re-joining the workforce then there is no reason for the State to fund them - there is no benefit to society here. Many people say 'oh but it stops them from turning to crime' - if the only thing that stops someone from being a criminal is bribing them/paying protection money - then I have to seriously question why we are allowing them to be a member of society.

Was that you proving the false dichotomy? Or just gonna ignore that bit?

You know I never ignore something I can argue about The False Dichotomy was that if we force people on the dole to do community service, other people will loose their jobs - I disproved that with my explanation of the minimum level of service is a constant - however we both know each others views on this - you don't accept that as a constant and so won't accept the rest of the premise.

[TheDemonLord]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vx5n21zHPm8


...nigger.

I love that Movie....

[Akzle]

I love that Movie....

it was shit.

A massive disappointment.

Suits you.