Drug Test for Unemployment Benies.

towermonkey wrote: Whether or not it shows up as a deduction, it is classified as a payroll tax. My point was that it is not a government mandated charity as some here have classified it.

And I totally agree... It's NOT a "charity", and it's NOT "welfare"... And trying to impose ANY restriction for an unnecessary "drug test" or any other restriction other than those already in place to ensure that it goes to people who qualify for it is just more right-wing silliness.

towermonkey wrote: Unemployment benefits are insurance programs paid for by payroll taxes (at least in a perfect world). These benefits are dispersed through state agencies, but the money comes out of your paycheck. Why would anyone want to add red tape to being able to receive these benefits? These aren't government charity as almost everyone here has stated.

I know you have already been corrected, but I am amazed at how many people think as you do. Many employers must sign a statement saying that they assure that the money was NOT taken out of the pay. Some states do have a small employee share. But the reason I am amazed is that there are three groups of people in America

1. Those that dont work or employ - don't matter here.
2. Those that employ - so they should know this because they are calcing and paying it.
3. Those that are employed and they should know this because they get paystubs. Your paystubs clearly say week after week or month after month that no money was taken out of your pay for this.

Many might not know that the amount paid varies by employer based on how many people have had to collect. You may have a rate of 4% to start and if someone collects who you were nice enough previously to give a job, your rate can jump to 10% or more until the amount they collected is paid back. So, no politics here, just math, when someone collects, their previous employer is taxed higher and then they are even less able to BOTH hire new employees AND retain the one's that are left over. So to be clear, when the local coffee shop that has 4 employees has a drop in business and has to let one employee go, once the company is surcharged for that previous employee's benefit payout, it is more likely to have to let another one of the three that are remaining go, the financial losses of business failure are literally compounded by this program.

So the concept may be ritchous, but the system actaully takes some steps backward for strides forward. Labor is still the big player in variable costs and business pay no taxes as they are all passed on to EITHER the consumer or the EMPLOYEE or the company will fail. Either way, from the Occupy perspective, the 99% will always pay for everything they ask for...with a little or not so little processing fee to the 1% for selling them the 99% they asked for. Every tax or benefit program is just another chance to manipulate the money or fee people for processing it in the first place. The LJ's of the world will demand it for the people they are concerned about and it will be fully paid for by the LJ's and the people she is concerned about. Equilbrium exists and things will always shift back to these same natural patterns. Just like the point made on how the % collected in the end did not change despite massive changes in tax rates in the 80s. Just like an economic bubble pops, loopholes correct right back to middle, where we will always trend no matter what tools you use, so why not use less and accept some larger swings from the norm...we will be back again sooner or later, just with less fees in the process.

But if you are gonna have the benefits, no tests except for need, and no benefit until your family has abandoned you...because before you ask for your last employer to let another person go to give you a payout, ask your mom, dad, brother, neighbor, 285bound nemesis or shopping store bag clerk first, have some manners.

IF people believe in this, then shouldn't the government drug test ANYONE who receives ANY government money? Politicians, cops, judges, contractors, bankers...

No, you pee in a cup...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/0 ... 89989.html

actions to drug test the lawmakers?

Soulshiner wrote: IF people believe in this, then shouldn't the government drug test ANYONE who receives ANY government money? Politicians, cops, judges, contractors, bankers...

That works for me even though
I believe that all drugs should be legalized. I do not want the guy navigating to be high.

I wonder what people would think of drug-testing anyone receiving Social Security benefits? How about pensions?

how about people with kids in the school system? I mean if a parent does drugs, should they really still scoop up $10k from the neighbors that year. They could have spent some of that drug money on their kid's education in stead of my money. Even if drugs or booze are both legal, they are still a recreational "extra" activity.

or any public employee? We could reduce taxes and have people maintain their standard of living by only having public employees that don't spend publically earned money on drugs.

We already drug test for some public school sports teams right? If so, then we have already accepted that doing drugs may reduce your public benefits, those that use deserve less and we teach the kids this right off. Playing on the team is a public benefit on public land with a public coach driven to games in the public bus, even if you chip in a little to be on the team.

How about for those who receive oil and gas subsidies? How about for lobbyists? HOW ABOUT FOR POLITICIANS?

AspenValley wrote: I wonder what people would think of drug-testing anyone receiving Social Security benefits? How about pensions?

rofllol they are all on drugs.

Perhaps if you cannot pass a drug test, your citizenship should be removed. No citizenship, no benneis. We can use this for al kinds of crimes.