Drugs Testing for Benefits

[Tony]

No it shouldn't be allowed unless this testing is also done on all those already in work or those applying for jobs as its singling out one section of the public without good reason.

 

Some people seem to have this weird idea that all those on benefits are idle and take drugs so I'm glad its not up to them to decide what they think should happen.

 

Sometime I wonder how long these moaners have actually been in work and paid in tax and NI contributions.

Well the "moaner" in the OP is a working soldier, and the people giving him his money (in this case HMG) insist on a drugs test just like many other employers do.

 

The soldier asks whether the people giving money to welfare recipients (ie HMG) should insist on a drugs test just like many employers do.

 

Is that a good reason?

[chem1st]

Last year the government printed into existence £3300 per man woman and child to give unto the wealthy, increasing the cost of goods for the poor (unemployed, pensioners, low wage workers etc.).

 

A sum >JSA.

 

Housing benefit is nothing but a landlord subsidy, and council tax-benefit, well the clue is in the oxymoronic name (note the 2nd home discount for the wealthy).

 

There should be a basic income for all (including the wealthy), and one flat rate of income tax for all.

 

 

In a month or two they shall do so again to drive inflation, we will default on our debt in a structural manner. £ is a currency. People need the right to pay for goods in a real money!

[LeMaquis]

Are you sure it was a British soldier? I've never heard any Briton use the expression "benefits cheque". Giro, dole money, social security, yes but never "benefits cheque". Sounds like an Americanism.

 

Your post is pointless. It's not going to happen. It's just someone whinging without thinking through the practicalities. There are millions of people on benefits so how are you going to test them all, and how often? And how much would it all cost to test millions of people and out of which government buget would it come? Which benefits are we talking about? Some or all? And if only some then why not others? And if all, some people who work get benefits, so would they have to take time off work to get tested? Who'd pay for the time off? Etc, etc. But most of all, it's not going to happen.

 

This post reads like one of those whines to the Sun or Mail, people who just want others to suffer because they're miserable themselves and not able to think through the consequences of what they're calling for.

[Ghostrider]

I cut'n'pasted this from a friend's Facebook wall:

 

Drugs Test (This was written by British Soldier- What he says makes a lot of sense!)

 

"I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to earn that pay , I train for war and eventualy deploy. I am required to pass a random urine test… for drugs l, with which I have no problem. ... What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a benefits cheque because I have to pass one to EARN IT for them? Please understand that I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sit on their arse drinking beer and smoking dope. Could you imagine how much money the government would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a benefit cheque?"

 

I quite like what he's saying - should taxpayers just have to accept that they subsidise the out of work to drink and take drugs, or should claimants be forced to spend their unearned income more sensibly?

Im wondering if we have the same friend

[Tony]

There should be a basic income for all (including the wealthy), and one flat rate of income tax for all.

I can't quite work out whether you are advocating pure communism or pure capitalism there.

[Cavegirl]

I find I have quite a lot to say on this topic so apologies in advance if it turns into an essay.

 

The first thing I want to say is that if you are looking to reform parts of the benefits system in order to prevent so called 'druggies' or 'scroungers' from taking advantage of working people's tax then the best time to do it is at a peak of economic growth because at that point there are plenty of jobs, the majority of those who want to work are in work, there are few people on benefits and there is plenty of money available to pay staff to look into individual's work histories and decide whether they are using the benefits to sustain their non-working lifestyles. The wrong time to criticise people on benefits is right now, when we're still at the beginning of an ever-worsening economic depression, when hundreds of thousands are unwillingly losing their jobs and pensions, when there's no money available to pay for reforms and the private sector is struggling to grow. Right now, benefits are a necessary security net for many many families.

 

For me, the broken benefits system is just a symptom of a much larger broken system. Back in the 1970's several important things happened. Firstly women entered the workforce and mass migration occurred as the post-war 'baby boomer' generation looked for work. This huge supply of new workers meant that company owners no longer had to raise wages in line with inflation because if a worker didn't like the pay they offered they could always replace them with someone who would. At the same time, Nixon took the dollar off the gold standard to pay for the Vietnam War and this enabled the US to massively inflate their currency. In turn this effected the UK economy because the pound is tied to the dollar through the Bretton Woods system. So with flat lining wages, increased productivity due to improved technology and massive amounts of fiat currency available the corporations were able to grow enormously and cream off the profits. The corporations also went international- they moved their factories to wherever the labour was cheapest and forced us to have a service (ie lots of low-skilled jobs in tourism, retail and distribution) rather than manufacturing (lots of high-skilled jobs) economy. You can merrily reduce the standards of state education in a largely low-skilled economy - ever wonder why we keep having record numbers of GCSE passes? You can also continue to flat line wages:

 

If the demand for labor by employers does not keep up with the supply of labor then the wage rate will be depressed. This is particularly harmful for employees working in industries that have low barriers to entry for new employees, i.e. they do not have high education or training requirements. Industries with higher requirements tend to pay workers higher wages, both because there is a smaller labor supply capable of operating in those industries and because the required education and training carries significant costs.

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/education-training-advantages.asp

 

Throughout the 80's and 90's we saw the outcome that these massive profits had on the individuals that accrued them- the 'yuppies' were invented. First they bought into the stock market as depicted in the film 'Wall Street', then it was gadgets and technology which created the dot com bubble, later it was land and housing and we all know how the housing boom ended. Now we're in the midst of a commodity bubble- there's no end to what these people will spend their profits on as workers wages continue to essentially flat line.

 

One real triumph that they've had is that they've convinced themselves and us that they've accrued all of this money because they're actually superhuman- they deserve disgustingly large bonuses as heads of corporations because they are brilliant and are the best at what they do. Actually they're just crooks and thieves, low-lifes who continue to flaunt our wealth at us. Their massive profits have even enabled them to take over government- the large corporations not only pay lobbyists to speak louder in politicians ears than the public ever could, they employ our politicians on their boards of directors and they assist them by using their media to dictate to us how we should feel about their policies.

 

The real moment of glory for corporations came the moment they realised they could lend their workers the profits that they had accrued from not paying them higher wages through the banking system and even demand interest on the payments! So for 30 years they've indebted us with our own productivity. The harder we've worked, the more indebted we've become- the only limit was our ability to push ourselves harder on the 'work harder to pay off our debts' treadmill and this limit was reached in late 2007.

 

No 'dole scrounger', whether on drugs or not, will ever ever come close to robbing working people the way that corporations have. Any anger that you send their way is mis-spent and malaligned. The corporations want you to blame immigrants and people on benefits for this mess- they're paying people to put out propaganda that will affect your opinions on social networks. They know exactly what buttons to press because they spend phenomenal amounts of money researching these things.

 

We need to take back control of society in our favour. Enable people to get into work- boycott the big corporations and set up worker co-operatives together. Co-operatives will never cream off profits by flat-lining wages. Set up local currencies and buy locally to ensure that our communities benefit from our productivity. Don't allow corporations to own privatised state functions. Don't bank with unscrupulous financial institutions, save instead of borrowing and stay out of the rigged stock market. Ten years down the line we might have a society worth living in and then people will view those few that remain on benefits as a lifestyle choice as fools rather than thieves.

[Bassman62]

. Back in the 1970's several important things happened. Firstly women entered the workforce .

Are you being serious?

[Bassman62]

Food coupons with the name of the recipient and proof needed when presented.

[Eater Sundae]

Actually, I kind of agree with this. In my opinion it's not that simple though.

Here's two hypothetical examples of people on benefits and what I think should happen:

 

A) Bazza, a man in his 30's who has never had a job, has a big TV he likes to sit and watch all day, has a few cans a day and a few spliffs. He has no intention of ever getting a job and is happy to keep milking the system for as long as he can.

 

YES I think he should be denied benefits! He's a leech on society and probably his family & friends. He will never contribute anything back.

 

B) Jacko, a man in his 30's who lost his job 2 years ago, spends most days looking though the local paper and forums for jobs, goes to the job centre regularly but finds nothing, occasionally goes out and approaches local businesses in person in the hope of finding work. He has every intention of finding work and will contribute to society once again when he is employed. He has sold his big TV. Once a fortnight he treats himself to £10 of booze or maybe cannabis, I don't know which one he partakes in.

 

NO I don't see why he should be penalised for this. I've been out of work before and tried my best to find work again, for months. It can crush your spirit if you don't have something to enjoy once in a while.

 

 

The problem is, a urine test doesn't differentiate between the two. Maybe you should have to have a license to gamble though, with one of the qualifying criteria being employment, before you are granted a license. This should stop people on benefits from living in the bookie's.

 

Yes, but if the rules were that if you failed a drugs/drink test, you wouldn't receive benefit, then how would A & B react? Chap B would say "its a small price to pay until I get back on my feet", and toe the line. Chap A would either accept that he has to change his attitude if he wants benefit, and so also starts to try for work and toe the line (which is the aim of such changes, so a good result), OR he would carry on as at present, and we would no longer support him.

 

To me,the issue is whether they are actively and honestly trying to work, and are able to do so, not whether they use their money to buy legal or illegal drugs (although the two may go together).

 

I don't think the issue is the feckless people themselves - we could easily find a way of depriving them of benefits if they are not prepared to try. The problem is their chlidren. How can we punish children, just because their parents are spongers?

[Eater Sundae]

Are you being serious?

 

Nothing happened before 1970, obviously.