ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => Rants and Debate => Topic started by: Mao on March 01, 2013, 01:25:36 pm
-
Saw the law to drug test welfare recipients was passed in Kansas today, mainly supported by Republicans, but opposed somewhat by Democrats:
http://www.kansascity.com/2013/02/28/4092105/kansas-senate-passes-bill-to-require.html
But sometimes, Democrats support it:
http://bangordailynews.com/2013/02/28/politics/state-house/maine-democrat-submits-bill-to-drug-test-welfare-recipients/
But then, the high court rejects it on the grounds of violation of the Constitution:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/26/court-nix-fla-law-drug-testing-welfare-applicants/
Meanwhile, LNP wants to introduce something similar:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/drug-test-the-unemployed-before-dole-says-coalition-mp-george-christiansen/story-fn59niix-1226376268042
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/14525851/drug-tests-for-welfare-on-lib-agenda/
-
Lots of the drugs they wish to test for should be legal. If they tested any profession: doctors, lawyers, engineers, politicians, musicians... they would also find lots of people taking drugs.
-
I think that is somewhat irrelevant, though
Doctors, lawyers etc all make significant contributions to society, and they would pay for the drugs with the money they have earnt themselves
I think the issue is that the money received through welfare could be spent on drugs. It would not be their own money, but it would be the money the Government has given them (taxpayer's money) to help pay for food, gas, electricity, education or health care, but instead it's being spent on drugs.
If they can't support their drug habits on their own, some might think that it's unfair that they should be able to use the tax payer's dollar to support it.
Of course if they believe that, then they should also be against using welfare money to gamble or buy alcohol - but that would probably be near impossible to test for.
On the other hand, only a very small percentage of people on welfare use drugs, I think it's something like 8%
So correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a chance that more money would be spent trying to test everyone before putting them on welfare than the amount saved from the reduction in welfare payments?
-
All from an Australian perspective anyway.
I think part of it is based on the perception that those icky poor people just sit around all day ripping bongs or everyone on welfare is a bogan.
As far as i know, it's fairly hard to just stay on welfare for no good reason and sit around all day watching TV. They try make you work and they progressively cut down your money over time if you don't (as far as i know).
It also must be remembered that whilst living on welfare is indeed living in the sense you can eat, its far from living the good life. It's meant to be deliberately unpleasant, it's enough to keep you alive and reasonably healthy but it's not enough to live a proper life off, like enjoying the rare pleasure like going to a restaurant or seeing a movie.
So, i think a lot of this springs from some very warped idea that we have welfare queens (usually tinged with racial or class undertones as well) living it up off our money. We don't. If you're spending your money on any significant amount of drugs, then, you're probably even skimping on things like food, you have bigger problems than mismanaged spending then.
Most of us receive government money in one way or another. A lot of families get family tax benefits, people get the baby bonus, a lot of families with school aged children got some kind of educational bonus from the government. I'm not convinced why, if you say we shouldn't drug test these people, why we should drug test people on the dole, rather than the perception that everyone who is poor is an icky, deadbeat, non-motivated loser. Not to mention, under this regime, they can still spend it on perfectly legal drugs if they like but i'm sure it's patriotic to support the goon industry after-all.
I've also seen some arguments that suggest it would cost more to enforce this (not to mention the liberty cost) than you would reap by totally cutting drug users off from welfare, which, i don't think is consistent with values in a society like Australia. I'm not happy they're using drugs, they need help but doesn't mean we should cut them off from welfare and let them die on the street either.
-
i think perhaps having the tests, and then those who fail the tests can be given the option of having a job assigned to them from the government which they have to carry out in order to receive payments?
-
Absolutely not. People should have access to welfare regardless of whether they are struggling with a drug addiction - which they should receive help for.
-
Absolutely not. People should have access to welfare regardless of whether they are struggling with a drug addiction - which they should receive help for.
I certainly agree that failing a drug test shouldnt disqualify a person from receiving welfare - but maybe it should mean that a different approach than just handing out money should be implemented?
-
Absolutely not. People should have access to welfare regardless of whether they are struggling with a drug addiction - which they should receive help for.
My sentiments exactly. These people haven't broken the law so why should they be subjected to drug tests? Does being poor automatically make you a suspect?
Is essence drug testing your citizens to see if they're fit for help is another way of saying 'get your shitty habits together and clean yourself up.'
May as well screen people for things like smoking, alcohol addictions, depression, being a lazy person who doesn't apply for jobs etc.
Also a great way of boosting the parent's ego when they have to get tested to provide food for their kids. If i recall, a very small population of people on welfare are drug users.
-
The relationship between taxpayers and welfare receivers, perceived by taxpayers, is somewhere between a donation and giving money to a beggar, depending on the taxpayer's world view. I believe it is reasonable for taxpayers to ask for some kind of quality assurance that their 'donations' are being put to good use and their kindness is not abused. This, however, depends on whether or not taxpayers would like to see this kind of quality assurance.
I don't think the question comes down to if it is morally right or wrong to deny aid to someone due to a drug addiction. It comes down to a public consensus on what the taxpayers want.
But if we want to talk about the morality of denying welfare due to a drug addiction, we need to talk about how a drug addiction is developed. Environmental circumstances do play a part, but Australia is one of the few countries that has a lot of drug-related education. Welfare or not, people shouldn't be excused for a drug addiction unless for exceptional circumstances.
-
Never received any proper drug education, so there.
And I never liked intersubjectivity.
-
The relationship between taxpayers and welfare receivers, perceived by taxpayers, is somewhere between a donation and giving money to a beggar, depending on the taxpayer's world view. I believe it is reasonable for taxpayers to ask for some kind of quality assurance that their 'donations' are being put to good use and their kindness is not abused. This, however, depends on whether or not taxpayers would like to see this kind of quality assurance.
it's reasonable enough for a taxpayer to expect their taxes to be put to use, and in that case I'd be much more supportive of a system of exchanging the welfare cheques for food stamps. this guarantees that taxpayers aren't funding someone's cigarettes/alcohol/drugs.
Additionally, if taxpayers and the government feel the need for a drug test to screen suitable applicants to receive welfare, then it's clear that drug rehab and support groups need more funding. The answer is not to turn a blind eye to individuals afflicted with drug addictions. That's pretty much excluding those who need the most help, which makes no sense.
-
Never received any proper drug education, so there.
Bullocks. The number of times I had to sit through a school announcement on the matter, or Mr so-and-so speaking about it at an assembly, or the millions of ads on TV and radio, or billboards. You may not have had detailed education on the precise nature of drugs, but the sentiment is definitely well communicated: smoking is bad, drugs are bad, binge drinking is bad. The onus is on the citizen to do the research and make an informed decision.
And I never liked intersubjectivity.
And what happens when other taxpayers disagree with you?
-
Bullocks. The number of times I had to sit through a school announcement on the matter, or Mr so-and-so speaking about it at an assembly, or the millions of ads on TV and radio, or billboards.
That might have been at your school. At mine we did not receive much in the way of drug education (besides the usual "drugs are bad m'kay" line every now and then). And the government TV ads and brochures hardly constitute education, they are propaganda.
-
they should be drug tested BUT if positive, they shouldnt get their money taken from them, they should still get it, but they should be subject to mandatory (free) counselling from social workers and the like, im sure tonnes of people would love to get the volunteering experience, taxpayers are more content that their money is going to good use, peoples habits help get kicked, everyone wins
boom
-
Bullocks. The number of times I had to sit through a school announcement on the matter, or Mr so-and-so speaking about it at an assembly, or the millions of ads on TV and radio, or billboards. You may not have had detailed education on the precise nature of drugs, but the sentiment is definitely well communicated: smoking is bad, drugs are bad, binge drinking is bad. The onus is on the citizen to do the research and make an informed decision.
I've never had drug education, and I'd say that messages regarding drug usage are extremely mixed in our society. Drinking is still very positively portrayed, for example, and is entirely entrenched into our culture.
And what happens when other taxpayers disagree with you?
They're wrong.
-
Silly suggestion and underlying suggestion imo, really.
"Shit, just got made redundant at the factory. Might have to go talk to Centrelink. How embarrassing, but I have to keep the kids fed."
"Hi, welcome to Centrelink. Oh, that's a pity about the factory. I understand, seeking help is hard... Oh, by the way, here's a cup to piss in."
"Excused" for a drug addiction makes it sound like a cardinal sin.
Mao - my intention is not to attack you (it might seem that way), but I remember a debate not long ago re: Tasmania phasing out tobacco and making it illegal. If I could super-summarise and paraphrase your contention "That's a civil rights violation and people should be able to smoke if they want to" whilst a point against yours was essentially "it's costing taxpayers lots of money when all these fuckers get cancer et al"...
So, why is the civil rights of tobacco smokers more important than the desires of taxpayers if the desire of taxpayers is more important than the civil rights of welfare recipients? If that question is not applicable, what's the point of difference between the prior argument I've mentioned and this one?
There was lots of drug education at my school. Probably to match the amount of drugs.
-
They're wrong.
But what gives you the right to dictate how my taxes are spent? My taxes at the end of the day are my contributions, you would be the last person who gets a say in how it's used.
Mao - my intention is not to attack you (it might seem that way),
All good,
but I remember a debate not long ago re: Tasmania phasing out tobacco and making it illegal. If I could super-summarise and paraphrase your contention "That's a civil rights violation and people should be able to smoke if they want to" whilst a point against yours was essentially "it's costing taxpayers lots of money when all these fuckers get cancer et al"...
So, why is the civil rights of tobacco smokers more important than the desires of taxpayers if the desire of taxpayers is more important than the civil rights of welfare recipients? If that question is not applicable, what's the point of difference between the prior argument I've mentioned and this one?
Those two cases are very different, because of where the money comes from. In fact, taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for cigarette-related problems (that should be a matter of private health insurance), but that's a different point.
In the case of cigarettes (extendable to any drugs, whether or not they are currently legal), citizens should have a right to purchase them with their own money and consume them. If I have the bank account to support it, I should be able to take up any drug addiction I want to.
In the case of drugs for welfare recipients (extendable to cigarettes and alcohol), welfare recipients are living off the gratuity of other taxpayers (or at least this is some of us interpret it). If I'm helping a mate get back onto his feet by giving him some money, I would be enraged if he did not use the money constructively.
These are my views, I don't generalise them to the entire population, but a lot of the population do share at least the latter sentiment, and this will be one of the things we will have to consider come election time. I'm not seeking the 'absolute' best moral action here or some kind of moral ideal, that's not the point of democracy. I would like the view of the taxpayers reflected in the legislations.
-
Fair enough. I appreciate your strict view on democracy. However, there's always potential for a majority to cause something ludicrous. To take it to an extreme, I'm sure a majority of voters in early 20th century America would have been mighty happy for all sorts of atrocities to happen to the black folk, but the actions would still be atrocious. For every welfare recipient to be drug tested would be a violation of civil rights, regardless of a majority opinion, and I guess when we shift importance from individual and community rights we're damaging the value of living in a democracy.
Actually I suppose if as you applied you just had to lick a cotton bud or something that would be efficient and not so bad. This would be good to determine who needs further support. Hm. Still brings up the issues of recreational drug use V. someone being an addict.
-
As a taxpayer, no.
Receiving welfare is not an easy life. You barely have enough to live on as it is. If the recipient chooses to spend their money on drugs rather than food (because honestly there isn't enough for both) then so be it. That's their choice and if "my money" (I take issue with this concept, I don't think it's "my money" at all but society's money, but that's another debate) is going to their drug addiction, that's the price I pay for living in a society where people are free to make their own choices.
-
The point of welfare isn't to fund entire lifestyles of people over their lifespan. In practice, that does happen, but the majority of people on payments are on payments in the short-term. Quite a lot of Australians receive welfare payments at some point in their life: about a third. We aren't talking about a small niche group of people, we're talking about ordinary Australians who just need a bit of help. Source: http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/downloads/labour/1_final-report_RIS.pdf
In that sense, it's not really meaningful to talk about people on welfare as a stable group or as a certain 'type' of person. People lose their jobs and need some income support sometimes, that's life. There's no real reason why you'd immediately come to the conclusion that those people are on drugs (though, that said, quite a high proportion of Australians have admitted to drug use).
In this debate, then, it would be less inflammatory and would make more sense to talk about people who are on welfare in the long-term. Drug addiction might be more likely to be a problem for this group than for the general population (or, likewise, other problems which makes it difficult to find and keep work - lack of education, laziness, lack of self-belief, undiagnosed mental illness, etc.). But, even if you can show statistical correlation, how can you justify making people submit to drug testing on the fact that there happens to be a correlation? That's not evidence that any one person is taking drugs and is a complete invasion of privacy.
Even ignoring the human rights issues involved in mandatory testing, what do you do with the information that someone on welfare is in fact using drugs? I don't think that cutting their payments is necessarily a good way to get them to stop using, they can always commit crimes or go into prostitution or whatever. Moreover, forcing them to quit might work in the short-term, but ultimately one has to be able to make a choice to quit in order to truly quit. Otherwise, once they have a job and are back to freely spending money the way they want, they're just going to go back to using (and maybe lose their job as a result?). That is, if they aren't in jail (which is also a huge cost to taxpayers). Offer drug rehab services, for sure (actually these services are already available), even mandatory services if you know for a fact they are using (based on good evidence, rather than just the supposition that they're on drugs because they're on welfare), but don't take away someone's choice to quit drugs either.
Anyone who has been on welfare knows that it's a quick lesson on managing a budget and prioritising certain things above others, as you won't be able to afford everything you want. If "society" (taxpayers, the government, whoever) decides to dictate what welfare receipients should prioritise, then the important skill of managing a tight budget within the confines of one's personal tastes totally fails to be developed. Managing money is part of what makes an adult an adult, they should at least get a chance to try and do it for themselves if they can.
I don't really like the fact that money I paid in tax might be being used to buy drugs or KFC or whatever, but everyone has different requirements in their lives and if that's what they need to tide them over until they get their lives back on track, so be it. No doubt I spent some of my youth allowance on stuff that other people wouldn't approve of either *shug*. The point is that people should be allowed to make decisions throughout their adult life, including when they're on welfare payments (which usually isn't for long), it's part of treating everyone with dignity.
-
1. No, welfare recipients should not be subjected to drug testing any more than other citizens.
2. Welfare is neither charity or donations from taxpayers to non-taxpayers. The wealth of the nation belongs to all, taxpayers and non-taxpayers alike. Welfare is what we give to those who are not able to fend for themselves. The old, the disabled, the disadvantaged.
3. That's why we don't have riots in the streets.
4. It's the Australian way.
-
But what gives you the right to dictate how my taxes are spent? My taxes at the end of the day are my contributions, you would be the last person who gets a say in how it's used.
Your taxpayer money will be spent according Federal appropriation bills. You get no more say than I do, thankfully. And thankfully as well, our politicians haven't stooped so low in populism to implement this ridiculous idea.
-
In that sense, it's not really meaningful to talk about people on welfare as a stable group or as a certain 'type' of person. People lose their jobs and need some income support sometimes, that's life. There's no real reason why you'd immediately come to the conclusion that those people are on drugs (though, that said, quite a high proportion of Australians have admitted to drug use).
In this debate, then, it would be less inflammatory and would make more sense to talk about people who are on welfare in the long-term. Drug addiction might be more likely to be a problem for this group than for the general population (or, likewise, other problems which makes it difficult to find and keep work - lack of education, laziness, lack of self-belief, undiagnosed mental illness, etc.).
I agree with this, but I think the distinction is not the most important thing here. Distinguishing between different groups is a matter of implementation. For example, I don't think there is any point applying this to disability-related support or pensions. On the other hand, youth allowance should definitely be subjected to drug testing above all other welfare (it is perhaps the most abused welfare of them all). The crux of the issue is what do we do with welfare abuse.
I will address rehabilitation in another post, but for now I want to focus on the notion of welfare.
Still brings up the issues of recreational drug use V. someone being an addict.
Recreational drug use is a luxury, much like gamling is a luxury. Someone on welfare shouldn't be in either. If there is a way to prevent welfare recipients from gambling, it would be subjected to the same reasoning here.
2. Welfare is neither charity or donations from taxpayers to non-taxpayers. The wealth of the nation belongs to all, taxpayers and non-taxpayers alike. Welfare is what we give to those who are not able to fend for themselves. The old, the disabled, the disadvantaged.
Can you tell me who generates this wealth of the nation?
Take natural resources (perhaps the easiest to address), how should the wealth from this be distributed? What margin of profit should go to the business which put in the hard work in digging up the resources? What margin of profit belong to citizens who just happened to be there?
On the other end of the spectrum, take intellectual property. How should the wealth from that be distributed? Why should any of that wealth belong to the nation? You may mention education is publicly funded, which enables my creation of intellectual property. But I would be happy to pay back the exact figure spent on my education, and more to sponsor future education. That, however, does not obligate me to contribute more, nor does it entitle anyone else to wealth that did not derive from the fruits of their labor.
Can you then tell me, what is this wealth of the nation? More precisely, do able-bodied welfare recipients contribute to this wealth? Whence comes this entitlement they have on the 'wealth of the nation'?
Welfare is not necessarily a gratuity, but it is not an entitlement. I fully support helping someone to get back onto their feet, so that they can be productive in the society again. The intention here is clear: to help them become productive again. It is definitely associated with expectations and trust, it should be a contract, and it's more like a loan from society than a 'right to live in dignity'. If the recipient has no intention of reaching that goal, or the recipient wants to abuse the gratuity, I would seriously reconsider before giving that person a second or third chance.
I don't know how this contributes to the debate:
Your taxpayer money will be spent according Federal appropriation bills. You get no more say than I do, thankfully. And thankfully as well, our politicians haven't stooped so low in populism to implement this ridiculous idea.
Of course I have no more say than you do, our votes count equally. However, I don't see anything inherently wrong with my views, at least not in the sense that a statement can be mathematically wrong or is a logical fallacy. Unless you subscribe to some absolute morality, you must concede that we have different moral standpoints.
I acknowledge that my viewpoint is harsh (though I am arguing the extreme case here to highlight the fundamental moral differences, my actual actions lie somewhere between the two extremes). You calling it ridiculous, however, is an attack without basis.
-
Recreational drug use is a luxury, much like gamling is a luxury. Someone on welfare shouldn't be in either. If there is a way to prevent welfare recipients from gambling, it would be subjected to the same reasoning here.
There is, though. Require all establishments offering gambling services to check ID. Register welfare recipients' ID on a universal system and require such establishments to turn away all patrons whose ID matches with that of the government welfare recipient register.
But a cost-benefit analysis of that would surely come up seriously on the cost side. Where do you draw the line on placing (even more) conditions on welfare?
Where do you draw the line between luxury and utility? Should welfare recipients be required to purchase home brand goods only? Surely the branded bread that is $2 more expensive than the Coles brand bread is a luxury. Should we be withdrawing welfare from those who dare to purchase a newspaper with their welfare money, because it's technically a luxury i.e. not essential to everyday life? Where does this policing of how people spend their money stop?
Can you tell me who generates this wealth of the nation?
Taxpayers who are liable to tax. The government decides how much and on what things each taxpayer should pay tax on. There is and never has been a direct relationship between the amount of the payment and the benefit to the taxpayer.
The nature of taxation is that you cannot expect that it would necessarily directly benefit you. If you want to live in a every-man-for-himself society, then you should find a country that follows that principle and move there. I can't think of any country that has successfully employed that model, though, and I can't imagine it would be a very nice place to live.
Welfare is not necessarily a gratuity, but it is not an entitlement. I fully support helping someone to get back onto their feet, so that they can be productive in the society again. The intention here is clear: to help them become productive again. It is definitely associated with expectations and trust, it should be a contract, and it's more like a loan from society than a 'right to live in dignity'. If the recipient has no intention of reaching that goal, or the recipient wants to abuse the gratuity, I would seriously reconsider before giving that person a second or third chance.
A drug-taking person is not necessarily barred from being a productive member of society. I do not see any payments in this list that do not have associated conditions, whether it be seeking/continuing employment, education or otherwise. I do not believe that someone who takes drugs recreationally but is also spending their time actively searching for work should be barred from receiving such assistance. We may have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world, but it's not at 0%.
That, however, does not obligate me to contribute more, nor does it entitle anyone else to wealth that did not derive from the fruits of their labor.
No, but I would hope that most people would prefer to live in a more egalitarian society where some of the wealth from the more fortunate can be redistributed to the less fortunate.
-
Nina basically wrote what I was going to say when I had the time to, just one thing though
We may have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world, but it's not at 0%.
You wouldn't want 0% unemployment. Full employment is commonly regarded as ~3%, any lower than that and you're going to have inflationary problems as you won't have any job seekers, meaning that to attract workers you're going to have to raise wages.
Anyways, let's consider what welfare actually is. If we define it as some sort of direct monetary payment by the government to a citizen, which of course is funded via taxation. Well then... How many Australian families receive the FTB? You'd be drug testing millions of people.
So wait a moment, you'd say. I'm only talking about those poor people, you know, the dirty stinky ones who're good-for-nothing lazy drug addicts! Uhm. Okay then.
Oh, and what about pensioners? Are we to drug test them as well? Ha.
We could broaden this even further. Welfare often refers to the deliverance of goods and/or services as well, such as food stamps or public housing to those who cannot afford them. Or education, yeah. I think we should drug test all parents with kids in the school system. Those lazy parents could be using their drug money to pay for their kids own education!
Ooh, what about that student aid? Or that ridiculous HECS interest-free loan, on which the government basically loses money? Drug-test all university students! Surely you wouldn't want the government using your money to fund some drug addict's education. And I'm sure none of those university students have been smoking joints lately, right? ;)
Speaking of financial assistance, how about all those corporate tax breaks? I say we drug test them CEO's as well! They're probably all on coke, anyway.
So, a moment of seriousness. The vast majority of people you'd want to drug test, those lazy bummers on the dole, are actually simply the product of cyclical employment patterns. 90% of them will be working in a job sometime soon. Now some of those, y'know, might have had something to drink recently, or smoked cannabis, or maybe are even struggling with an addiction to a hard drug (tobacco?). That's not a reason to pull the plug on them, and restrict them from finding a job again.
-
You wouldn't want 0% unemployment. Full employment is commonly regarded as ~3%, any lower than that and you're going to have inflationary problems as you won't have any job seekers, meaning that to attract workers you're going to have to raise wages.
TIL, thanks :)
(I am not an economics student as you can probably tell lol)
-
No, but I would hope that most people would prefer to live in a more egalitarian society where some of the wealth from the more fortunate can be redistributed to the less fortunate.
Ability to need, huh?
-
Urine tests, which I'm assuming would be the test given for cost reasons, are easily circumvented anyway. It only tests drugs ingested recently and short-term abstention would give most people a negative. Also a lot of guides, information and advice on the internet on 'cheating' the test
-
Yes! Because the money they spend on the drugs does not go to the people living in Australia it's going somewhere else, the state is as well not getting the tax that it should get from the trade.
The consequence should be as abes proposed that they'd get a job allotted that most other citizens would not do, from that earned money they could get their drugs if they want to, because at least the earned money is getting taxed.
-
Right. What about all the (virtually) tax-free transactions corporations make? Fuck, if a company is registered outside of Australia it basically is not paying any tax at all.
-
Personally, I think they should do what they want, but the fact that some of them complain about being on welfare when they use taxes that we provide to spend it on things that aren't necessary, I genuinely get angry. If you're going to use your welfare payments on weed, go for it. Don't complain after when you're starving, partly because of the marijuana and partly because you can't afford food. /rant
-
Broken into two parts due to length (and make quoting somewhat easier).
Part 1/2, response to Polonius.
Anyways, let's consider what welfare actually is. If we define it as some sort of direct monetary payment by the government to a citizen, which of course is funded via taxation. Well then... How many Australian families receive the FTB? You'd be drug testing millions of people.
So wait a moment, you'd say. I'm only talking about those poor people, you know, the dirty stinky ones who're good-for-nothing lazy drug addicts! Uhm. Okay then.
Oh, and what about pensioners? Are we to drug test them as well? Ha.
We could broaden this even further. Welfare often refers to the deliverance of goods and/or services as well, such as food stamps or public housing to those who cannot afford them. Or education, yeah. I think we should drug test all parents with kids in the school system. Those lazy parents could be using their drug money to pay for their kids own education!
You seem to have fixated on a very minor point which I have already addressed:
Distinguishing between different groups is a matter of implementation. For example, I don't think there is any point applying this to disability-related support or pensions. On the other hand, youth allowance should definitely be subjected to drug testing above all other welfare (it is perhaps the most abused welfare of them all). The crux of the issue is what do we do with welfare abuse.
But for the sake of this argument, I shall define what I mean by welfare: a hand-out from the government to able-bodied people who are able to participate in full-time employment, which forms their main form of income.
Ooh, what about that student aid? Or that ridiculous HECS interest-free loan, on which the government basically loses money? Drug-test all university students! Surely you wouldn't want the government using your money to fund some drug addict's education. And I'm sure none of those university students have been smoking joints lately, right? ;)
HECS is different from youth allowance and the like, in the sense that it is an indexed loan and not cash in hand. Otherwise, I very much want to target student aid. It is perhaps the most highly abused welfare we have. Just because many students have taken drugs doesn't mean they ought to continue to do so.
Also, a possible straw-man or misinterpretation (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt), I have not said anything about a one-strike-and-out system. I haven't even talked about what actions should be taken afterwards (but I do touch on this briefly below).
So, a moment of seriousness. The vast majority of people you'd want to drug test, those lazy bummers on the dole, are actually simply the product of cyclical employment patterns. 90% of them will be working in a job sometime soon. Now some of those, y'know, might have had something to drink recently, or smoked cannabis, or maybe are even struggling with an addiction to a hard drug (tobacco?). That's not a reason to pull the plug on them, and restrict them from finding a job again.
You seem to have missed the point. I have no problems with supporting people to get back into employment. Most of the people using the system are not abusing it.
I do have a problem with:
- people abusing unemployment on a long term (rare)
- people, during a short unemployment period, abusing substances using the dole
Being 'humanitarian' in our policies does not excuse their actions. Perhaps the correct action is not pulling the plug completely, but there must be punishment. Perhaps such abuse may attract a fine payable in future employment, or perhaps welfare for this person moves to a HECS-like indexed, interest-free debt payable in future employment. The point is, it should not be excused.
Speaking of financial assistance, how about all those corporate tax breaks? I say we drug test them CEO's as well! They're probably all on coke, anyway.
Yes! Because the money they spend on the drugs does not go to the people living in Australia it's going somewhere else, the state is as well not getting the tax that it should get from the trade.
The consequence should be as abes proposed that they'd get a job allotted that most other citizens would not do, from that earned money they could get their drugs if they want to, because at least the earned money is getting taxed.
Right. What about all the (virtually) tax-free transactions corporations make? Fuck, if a company is registered outside of Australia it basically is not paying any tax at all.
1. Corporate tax breaks are applied to the company's balance sheets, not the CEO's personal income. CEOs can do whatever they want with their money, it is after-all their money.
2. Corporate tax breaks exist because it has been deemed better for the economy. It is not a matter of whether or not we are deriving tax from these trade, it's a matter of whether or not trade would even exist if these taxes are there. It is quite simply a different problem to the one at hand.
Though, your rebuttal does in large refute FlorianK's point.
-
Part 2/2, response to nina:
There is, though. Require all establishments offering gambling services to check ID. Register welfare recipients' ID on a universal system and require such establishments to turn away all patrons whose ID matches with that of the government welfare recipient register.
I would agree to that.
But a cost-benefit analysis of that would surely come up seriously on the cost side. Where do you draw the line on placing (even more) conditions on welfare?
That is a matter of implementation. It may turn out that it is too costly to implement, and so we don't. But, what we learn from the exercise is that these tests ought to happen, and if one day testing methods become affordable, then we can and should implement it.
Where do you draw the line between luxury and utility? Should welfare recipients be required to purchase home brand goods only? Surely the branded bread that is $2 more expensive than the Coles brand bread is a luxury. Should we be withdrawing welfare from those who dare to purchase a newspaper with their welfare money, because it's technically a luxury i.e. not essential to everyday life? Where does this policing of how people spend their money stop?
This is reducto ad absurdum, no one has claimed this at all. It wouldn't be as ridiculous as a white-list system.
Taxpayers who are liable to tax. The government decides how much and on what things each taxpayer should pay tax on. There is and never has been a direct relationship between the amount of the payment and the benefit to the taxpayer.
If there is no direct relationship, then why do taxpayers vote on the way a treasury manages its budget? There is very much a direct relationship. Taxpayers expect the money to be used wisely. When it is not used wisely (cf ALP VIC, ALP NSW, ALP QLD), the government is kicked out.
The nature of taxation is that you cannot expect that it would necessarily directly benefit you. If you want to live in a every-man-for-himself society, then you should find a country that follows that principle and move there. I can't think of any country that has successfully employed that model, though, and I can't imagine it would be a very nice place to live.
1. I did not claim it should benefit me.
2. Consider welfare, I can put that money into small businesses, which will then hire the unemployed. Is welfare then an absolute necessity?
3. Re: vote with my feet, the same can be said for you. If people do vote in a party that implements this law, you would be the one forced to yield or leave.
A drug-taking person is not necessarily barred from being a productive member of society. I do not see any payments in this list that do not have associated conditions, whether it be seeking/continuing employment, education or otherwise. I do not believe that someone who takes drugs recreationally but is also spending their time actively searching for work should be barred from receiving such assistance. We may have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world, but it's not at 0%.
A productive member of society can take drugs all they want, with their own money. The government should never fund recreational drug consumption, or allow existing funds to be used in this way. The rules may not have these conditions now, but it ought to.
No, but I would hope that most people would prefer to live in a more egalitarian society where some of the wealth from the more fortunate can be redistributed to the less fortunate.
Of course, we ought to create an egalitarian society with equal opportunities. The less fortunate with skills/abilities should have a chance to move up the socioeconomic ladder.
But this has nothing to do with wealth distribution, and it never entitles a poor person to the wealth-pool simply because they are poor. Welfare given based on absolute wealth has to be a humanitarian aid, which is a gift in nature.
Equality of opportunity may be a right/entitlement (I am not sure where I stand on this yet), welfare is definitely not a right nor entitlement.
-
It seems like we will have to agree to disagree. And yes, if any government tried to implement such heartless policy, I would most definitely "vote with my feet" as soon as I could afford it.
-
I saw this today :)
(http://i.imgur.com/IV3RfDE.png)
-
I saw this today :)
(http://i.imgur.com/IV3RfDE.png)
I laughed :P