Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« NHS managers | Main | Another fine mess you've got me into »
Sunday
Feb012009

Urine tests for welfare recipients

From a reader:

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 cheque, I work on a cruise ship for a major shipping line. For the safety of all the passengers and the crew with whom I work, I am required to pass a random urine test, 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 welfare 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 ass drinking beer and smoking dope and making babies, that they do not want, cannot feed nor look after properly. Could you imagine how much money the government would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a benefits cheque?

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (4)

Well I kinda see where he's coming from but I'd rather the state poked less into people's lives than more.
Feb 1, 2009 at 2:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavidNcl
I take your point, David, but I would have no objection to it poking its nose just a little more into the lives of those it's paying. I think the net effect would actually be a smaller state in the end, if people ended up failing the test.

I've recieved benefits, and I'd have less objection to a urine test than to some of the hoops I had to jump through. It would actually have benefitted my case if I'd been an alcoholic or junkie.
Feb 1, 2009 at 6:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterSam Duncan
The state selectively pokes it's nose. It pokes it's nose where there is little or no obstruction (the silent majority). Where poking it's nose would be problematic the state turns a blind eye. This is usually claimed to be a cost saving stance. The state is therefore institutionally unfair.
Feb 2, 2009 at 8:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterThe Economic Voice
If you get a welfare cheque, you should live under the magifiying glass of the government. You shouldnt get away with anything. Payments should be made in food stamps which cant be used to buy alcohol / cigarettes / sky tv or anything like that. I completely agree with this, make them take a drugs test, cut them off at the knees if theyre spending my tax money on drugs.
Feb 4, 2009 at 11:54 AM | Unregistered Commenterpedigree

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>