Thoughts from a hard working Aussie(Not Me!)

I think the hardest worry I have about giving my hard-earned money away is over exactly where that money goes. I have no problem helping those I personally see in need of help. I do have a problem giving my money to people I've never met and, more than likely, never will meet. It's the biggest issue I have with giving money to beggars.
I understand it's degrading to ask for money, especially in a country where independence is highly valued. I really do feel sorry towards those people and the first thought to my mind is that they're just going to spend the money I give them for booze or something other than a necessity.

Anyway, back to the point of tax money and where it's going.

I think if they set up something like probation, where a person has to check in (and perhaps pass a random test) to receive their money, it'd work out better. Why? Jobs - the state would have to hire probation officers, Security - the money wouldn't be as prone to go towards drugs if a person is in fear of being randomly screened, and that all-important warm and fuzzy feeling that the money I've worked hard for is going to someone who needs it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FiReSTaRT

Just because a person is down on his/her luck doesn't mean that their privacy should be invaded that way. Speaking of which, I'm appalled at the fact that you have to do that for non L.E. jobs.

---

You have to do that to be a cashier, or a bag boy. You don't have to to be a CEO or sports star, or politician. Go figure.

You can be down on your luck, but I don't feel I should pay you unless you are willing to do what I have to to get a job, I am essentially employing you to do the work to find a good job. And yes even on the dole I am paying you, sort of. Figure this out they deduct state taxes from my state unemployment check.

If my stance is a little rock hard forgive me. I saw a couple collecting welfare for themselves and their handicapped child, they lived below my apartment while I was a student. Their daily occupation consisted of drinking beer and smoking, for two years. Then apparently having saved enough money out of their welfare checks they both went out and got jobs within a month of starting to look (she was a para-legal he was a CNC machine operator). Then in the next month they bought a new car (Chevy paid in full) and put a down payment on a house. Talk about suckling at the government teat. Now not anyone could do this they were "lucky" their only child was brain damaged and confined to a hockey helmet and rode the short bus literally. They "Lucky" quotation is from them. sick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FiReSTaRT

Just because a person is down on his/her luck doesn't mean that their privacy should be invaded that way. Speaking of which, I'm appalled at the fact that you have to do that for non L.E. jobs.

---

You have to do that to be a cashier, or a bag boy. You don't have to to be a CEO or sports star, or politician. Go figure.

You can be down on your luck, but I don't feel I should pay you unless you are willing to do what I have to to get a job, I am essentially employing you to do the work to find a good job. And yes even on the dole I am paying you, sort of. Figure this out they deduct state taxes from my state unemployment check.

If my stance is a little rock hard forgive me. I saw a couple collecting welfare for themselves and their handicapped child, they lived below my apartment while I was a student. Their daily occupation consisted of drinking beer and smoking, for two years. Then apparently having saved enough money out of their welfare checks they both went out and got jobs within a month of starting to look (she was a para-legal he was a CNC machine operator). Then in the next month they bought a new car (Chevy paid in full) and put a down payment on a house. Talk about suckling at the government teat. Now not anyone could do this they were "lucky" their only child was brain damaged and confined to a hockey helmet and rode the short bus literally. They "Lucky" quotation is from them. sick.


Incidently I think they ought to put all the illegal stuff on the same footing as alcohol available but regulated. Of course then we would have to come up with a whole new different set of tests because then they would need to know "are you on it" not "have you ever taken it" like current tests show.

That's where I agree with you. I'd never show up for work under the infuence of anything other than caffeine and nicotine. However, THC stays in your system for 3 weeks after the buzz wears off, so it's hard to determine whether you're on it or not based on a urine or blood test. In any case I'd prefer for it to be regulated and taxed like alcohol.
As for that family, that's really sick. As a volunteer, I've also come across women who pop women out of the oven like crazy so they can collect welfare, child tax benefits and child support. Still, as a civilized society we still need a framework to support the weak.
I wouldn't put all of the illegal stuff under the same footing. While I think that THC is a relatively safe drug (about as safe as alcohol), cocaine and heroin abuse is too much of a risk to the society to make them legal. And don't even get me started on LSD. That stuff could affect you for the rest of your life from taking a single dose.

`I think Ilija's example of how the gotv' helped his mom and him is an example of how the system should work - new people to the country or folks who just can get connect with the right job or get hired - but not for lack of trying. I think it goes back to a cultural standard - based on Ilija's comments, I can't imagine him NOT working....and I'm sure that is a trait he learned from his mom. That is where I learned my view of labor and its value.

There was a bit of a fuss in Baltimore when a elementary school student was asked what he wanted to be when he grew up...he answered "I want to be on Welfare!"...he viewed it as a profession.

There are always scammers for any system. They are the reason that checks and reviews need to be in place...unfortunately, some sincere, diligent folks will get reviewed as well so the system is equitable.

In Baltimore, I arrested a woman for assaulting her husband (she usually made bogus calls on him and then self-inflicted a minor wound to get him locked up...this time, she was sooooo mad at whatever she did, she called 911 and complained about him, but forgot to injure herself...but she had hit him with a phone, so she got to go to jail)...so, in the process of interviewing, I found out from her husband that she was getting welfare under one name, Social Security Disability under another name, Unemployment under a third name and working full time for cash under a fourth name. When the transport officer asked what her name was, so he could take her to Central Booking, I looked at her and asked "Which name should I use?" and then listed them. She freaked out and literally started foaming at the mouth. Her information was subsequently sent to the Welfare, Unemployment, and Social Security offices. The husband actually had his own business and was trying to get his kids away from the mom...why? Because her mother ("Grandma") was a drug dealer....and getting welfare, etc.

Those who can't work, they need help;
Those who won't work, won't eat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FiReSTaRT

Still, as a civilized society we still need a framework to support the weak.

---

there is a quote I heard, I don't remember from where or who, it said something like:
Of course I would help the unfortunate, but I don't want him to know that so he has and incentive to try as hard as he can.

I think "weak" is the wrong word. We don't need to support the "weak" we need to entice them to strengthen themselves or get out of the way, sink or swim. There are people who have been run over by the boat though, they need support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FiReSTaRT

I wouldn't put all of the illegal stuff under the same footing. While I think that THC is a relatively safe drug (about as safe as alcohol), cocaine and heroin abuse is too much of a risk to the society to make them legal. And don't even get me started on LSD. That stuff could affect you for the rest of your life from taking a single dose.

---

The neat thing about those more dangerous drugs is that they are also more expensive/dangerous to produce. If they were sold free market style THC would be dirt cheep cocaine would still cost a fortune, and there are lots of things in between. You would end up with a self regulating system where you could afford to get high like you can afford to drink beer, but to snort would be like a top shelf single malt, not for everyday use.

Coca and opiates are too addictive. So if people who usually wouldn't have access to them suddenly started buying them in liquor stores, they'd get addicted but couldn't afford to maintain the habit and would end up like the typical junkies. The problem with the "in between" is that some "in between" drugs are more damaging than what we see as the worst of the drug world. LSD can permanently mess up your mind and/or cause unpredictable flashbacks. You could be driving your car and suddenly get a flashback and kill yourself and/or other people. That has nothing to do with production quality. It's nat nature of the beast. So while I am in favor of legalizing some narcotics that are currently illegal, in most cases I'd involve medical review before legalizing anything.

I remember when I lived in NJ back in the 80's... it came out that 90% of the toll revenue from the NJ Turnpike went to pay the toll collectors. What the tolls were supposed to fund was road maintenance/improvement. :eek:

In our welfare system, which is the bigger problem... the fact that we expend tax monies for welfare payments to a small percentage of the population, or that we expend tax monies to pay a bloated bureaucratic system to administer distribution of those welfare payments which costs nearly three times what they distribute?

Sure there's a problem with fraudulent claims... we need a mechanism to fix that. And it's easy to pick on the down and out... they are the least able to defend themselves. But don't we also need to pick on the administrative system... that's where the real abuse is. Isn't there something wrong when the system consumes 2/3 to 3/4 of the total cost.


I don't portend to have the answers... just the questions. :shrug:

You made a very good point Joe. I don't agree with not helping the weak because a measure of how civilized a society is lies in how the "lowest of the low" are living..
In addition to that, what do we do with the truly disabled? Those that are incapable of swimming? Do we just let them sink? While encouraging strength in a society is good, since we are producing more than enough for everyone, those that truly do need our support should be taken care of. If you see a wrecked car and a person bleeding next to it, would you offer them assistance or would you just let them bleed to death?