Australia are planning to drug test people on welfare

steddyeddy

Running Cool wrote: »

Fine with me. If you're on the dole you shouldn't be wasting your money on weed or a bad of yokes.

This will cost you more tax.

delboythedub

"Is fosters beer ok"

Cocobongo

Completely agree! Why are some people feeling insulted here fighting for the rights of people on dole? I understand there are some exceptions, but it’s mostly people seeing the available jobs as “below their standards” who might find a decent place in one or two years(jesus) or alcoholics and drug addicts. Go wash some dishes ffs, 45hrs x 9.25 = a bit over 1.6k gross...

bananabread12

Wanderer78 wrote: »

with one of the worst homeless/housing crisis to ever exist in most recent times,you d have to ask, does all this gdp/gni stuff really matter

In a word, yes.

Coincidentally though the housing crisis is also another case of the State not allowing supply to meet demand.

dont forget, theres equal amounts of peer reviewed work claiming things such as minimum wage are important to have a properly functioning economy, so.....

Can you post/link these "equal amounts" of academic journals that are claiming that the minimum wage is a requirement for a functioning society - preferably one that is actually scientific and is supported by actual science ie - not some Trot ideologue.

Mr. teddywinkles

Pkiernan wrote: »

No. Just sick of paying 54% tax for layabout junkie dirtbags who should be put on a desert island and left there.

Hate to break it to ya the majority of people on welfare are not junkies. Most of which will be temporarily unemployed. Also as another brilliant suggestion from other poster. Ya could always work for less than min wage and ya wouldn't have to pay that nasty 54%.

Wanderer78

bananabread12 wrote: »

In a word, yes.

Can you post link these "equal amounts" of academic journals that are claiming that the minimum wage is a requirement for a functioning society - preferably one that is actually scientific and is supported by actual science ie - not some Trot ideologue.

id disagree actually, i personally believe we effectively have a two tier economic system that interact in complex ways. the economy thats spoken of widely in our media and amongst our political class is effectively the economy of the minority, but these systems interact with the economy of the majority in complex ways, and im afraid, you may forget about 'trickle down', as just like the 'efficient market hypothesis', it to is just 'a construct', otherwise known as, a pile of ****e!

i couldnt to be honest as i generally dont learn by reading, but could recommend the work of a few economists that may have produced such work. id say if you googled some peer reviewed economic journals, you d get to what you're looking for, never have myself, as it be like looking up a ducks arse.

Mr. teddywinkles

up for anything wrote: »

Set a thief to catch a thief. Take all the career welfarists and send them to Templemore for training not that they'd need much training in keying in breathalysers tests that didn't actually take place.



Why? I'm sick of hearing about it being non-addictive and harmless. It may have been back in the 60s but these days it's poison especially to the youngsters of this country.




So what are you going to put in its place? What about all those OAPs drawing the non-contributory pension? Is it down the mines and up the chimneys with them? All those disabled people? Fuck 'em, is it? Are you going to be happy about stepping over the thousands and thousands of homeless that will be littering the streets? It'll be interesting to know what your plan would be if you could abolish the welfare system altogether.

Someone suggested drug testing the public section - perhaps it would actually be better to send in independent time and motion experts, from other countries preferably, to spend a month in all the public sector departments in the country. They'd fall about the place laughing especially when they did a stint in Turas Nua listening to the internal joshing about how many of 'yours' got jobs this month! :rolleyes:

I'm beginning to think there's a lot of sociopaths on these forums.

gctest50

Pkiernan wrote: »

No. Just sick of paying 54% tax for layabout junkie dirtbags who should be put on a desert island and left there.

and how about this lot, inebriated while in charge of a veeehi country ?

Seanad suspended twice in less than hour amid row over claims senators drinking in Dáil bar between votes last week


http://www.thejournal.ie/seanad-suspended-row-inebriated-1848583-Dec2014/

Irish Praetorian

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

I'm beginning to think there's a lot of sociopaths on these forums.

I'm not sure it's that so much as the idea of the welfare sponge, leaching off the state and the hardworking part of the country is such a visceral and tangible one that it's hard not to on some level agree with the idea that only the deserving should get the support of the state.

Now if its any consolation only 40% of your tax take is spend on welfare, of which about a third (13% or so) goes on old age pensions, one sixth (6.5%) on benefits for the disabled, another sixth on things like child support and supplementary payments and another third (again 13% on 'working age income supports').

Of these WAIS, about two thirds (so lets say 8% of your tax bill) goes on Job-seekers benefit/allowance, the remainder going to things like adoption benefit, deserted wife allowance, maternity etc. Now we could stop that outright but it would knock your tax bill down from about 54% to maybe 50%, which may not be the dramatic saving you're looking for.

Frankly, I'd much prefer to see some kind of state work program that might kick in after say twelve months of unemployment. It's all well and good to offer some support for those down on their luck but after a certain point people prove themselves in need of employment rather than no questions asked money. There's a plethora of jobs from forestry to caring that the government would be better off paying people to do rather than just handing away free money and it would have the added benefit of screening out those incapable or too prideful to hold a job.

Mr. teddywinkles

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

I'm not sure it's that so much as the idea of the welfare sponge, leaching off the state and the hardworking part of the country is such a visceral and tangible one that it's hard not to on some level agree with the idea that only the deserving should get the support of the state.

Now if its any consolation only 40% of your tax take is spend on welfare, of which about a third (13% or so) goes on old age pensions, one sixth (6.5%) on benefits for the disabled, another sixth on things like child support and supplementary payments and another third (again 13% on 'working age income supports').

Of these WAIS, about two thirds (so lets say 8% of your tax bill) goes on Job-seekers benefit/allowance, the remainder going to things like adoption benefit, deserted wife allowance, maternity etc. Now we could stop that outright but it would knock your tax bill down from about 54% to maybe 50%, which may not be the dramatic saving you're looking for.

Frankly, I'd much prefer to see some kind of state work program that might kick in after say twelve months of unemployment. It's all well and good to offer some support for those down on their luck but after a certain point people prove themselves in need of employment rather than no questions asked money. There's a plethora of jobs from forestry to caring that the government would be better off paying people to do rather than just handing away free money and it would have the added benefit of screening out those incapable or too prideful to hold a job.

Quoting other poster on percentages. Also I get where your coming from but cheapening other people's jobs due to subsidized government labour. Also when these people are trained . Do you automatically think people will be hired long term even if they weren't needed in the first place. Trying to create jobs for the sake of needing them. BTW carers get paid even less than min wage by government in certain cases already which is fook all for a 24/7 job. Taxpayer wants return on investment when there is no return to be had. I think all these hi tech jobs have gone to people's heads. To be honest I think it will get worse also.
Every employer wants to reduce labour costs . Automation will contribute a lot to this over the next few decades. Gone are the days even if ya got your inter cert , head down the local factory, hey presto job. Maybe even work your way up to management eventually.

My guess is welfare of some sort will be the norm. And no amount of measures or moaning will change it. Less people in various sectors will be needed and we're not just talking the guy that puts shoelaces in your sneakers.

Irish Praetorian

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

Quoting other poster on percentages. Also I get where your coming from but cheapening other people's jobs due to subsidized government labour. Also when these people are trained . Do you automatically think people will be hired long term even if they weren't needed in the first place. Trying to create jobs for the sake of needing them. BTW carers get paid even less than min wage by government in certain cases already which is fook all for a 24/7 job. Taxpayer wants return on investment when there is no return to be had. I think all these hi tech jobs have gone to people's heads. To be honest I think it will get worse also.
Every employer wants to reduce labour costs . Automation will contribute a lot to this over the next few decades. Gone are the days even if ya got your inter cert , head down the local factory, hey presto job. Maybe even work your way up to management eventually.

My guess is welfare of some sort will be the norm. And no amount of measures or moaning will change it. Less people in various sectors will be needed and we're not just talking the guy that puts shoelaces in your sneakers.

I wouldn't have the cheapening of anyone's job in mind, it's simply the case that government subsidy for the unemployment is effectively a wage payment which is not at present obtaining a persons work in exchange. If someone receiving JSA then it might be far better that they are employed in some productive activity rather than simply being let loose.

You're definitely onto something when you mention automation and stratification though - it's getting harder and harder for unskilled labour to pay the bills, and working one's way up the ladder from the bottom seems to be getting harder across the field of work.

Sunny Disposition

This is a really good idea on the face of it, hopefully it works out.

Village Crazy Lady

Oranage2 wrote: »

And I don't get the AH love for people on welfare.

Most people on welfare are career spoongers with no skills????

im on welfare, im a carer for my aunt who has Alzheimer's. Im also a qualified accountant also a degree in employment law and human resources so im no feicin sponger with no skills, and neither are "most" people, its a small minority so stop with the sweeping generalizations

B.A._Baracus

Stupid idea.
Got to love when social welfare is mentioned on here tho :pac: you get the usual "better than thou" posts. But if any of ya lost your job you'd be straight down to the dole office.

up for anything

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

I'm beginning to think there's a lot of sociopaths on these forums.

Who? Me? Why?

Junkyard Tom

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owI7DOeO_yg