Kip Powick Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 Nice to see that some folks would like to see "fairness" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoomerPete Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 Seems to me that if passing a urine test was a requirement for drawing a paycheque then an awful lot of gainfully employed folks would be looking at a fistful of $00.00's on payday. If "fair" is the goal, why would this sort of "fairness" apply only to the unemployed who need to rely on social aid to pay their rent? And, for that matter, why would it be limited only to illicit substances detected in one's urine? Surely the amount of welfare dollars wasted on smokes and booze and the damage those substances cause are a far greater drag on us workin' men who pay the freight than whatever it is we might save by passing a "Pee for your Pogie Prerequisite" for government assistance? Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted January 28, 2007 Author Share Posted January 28, 2007 Wound up there a little tight eh Boomer. ??? d'cha see the ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AAS Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 I'm subject to random testing for drugs & alcohol. Also the iris scan, fingerprints and background check. If I don't like any of it I have a choice. Find a new job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handyman Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 I'm subject to random testing for drugs & alcohol. Also the iris scan, fingerprints and background check. If I don't like any of it I have a choice. Find a new job. Without all those tests/checks we would be an industry full of drunks, stoners and crooks. Ahhh, the good'ol days! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoomerPete Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 Wound up there a little tight eh Boomer. ??? d'cha see the ? Hardly, Kip ... But, you posted it, perhaps even took the time to cut and paste all those little bits together, so it's certainly fair game for rebuttal. I guess I'd take a bit of issue with the being a free pass since we're at it. You chose "He Has a Good Idea" as the title of the thread so presumably you agree with the sentiment at some level. I don't. I think the idea, and the impulse behind it, is narrow and demeaning and I don't have any hesitation in saying so. There are certainly people on assistance who are abusing drugs, but what would making all people on welfare submit to the indignity of having to pee for their pogie actually prove? Are you going to withhold it from anyone who rings the bell? That would certainly improve the situation. I don't believe illicit or illegal activity should be excused in the poor any more than in the rich, but suggesting that becoming poor or indigent means accepting searches of your person as the price of society's assistance is a poor idea for a joke. That said, my use of alliteration (you try coming up with four P's to go with the subject of pee on short notice!) was intended to show that I was trying keep a level of humour in the response. Cheers, Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoomerPete Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 I'm subject to random testing for drugs & alcohol. Also the iris scan, fingerprints and background check. If I don't like any of it I have a choice. Find a new job. Interesting ... it's been a while since I worked in Canada, but my understanding was that random (i.e. not for cause or pre employment) drug and alcohol testing was not permissible in Canada. I seem to recall it being an issue when the U.S. enacted laws requiring foreign carriers to comply to U.S. standards that violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I guess things must have changed. In any event, as you pointed out you have a choice: If I don't like any of it I have a choice. Find a new job.. What choice does the guy relying on welfare have? Starve? Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handyman Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 What choice does the guy relying on welfare have? Starve? Hardly, just go to work like the rest of us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted January 29, 2007 Author Share Posted January 29, 2007 Boomer S’alright Pete. There are an awful lot of people who don’t see the world with my skewed perception and in turn misinterpret what I post as my deep routed feelings about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness wherein I am actually only posting a low key chuckle. Whether you agree with the photo or not…it is an unusual bit of prose and conjures up a lot of funny scenarios. You probably were not in the “loop” when I was censored from the original ACPA forum back in 2001. Seems one can not entitle a thread with “ Mitchnick Award Turned Over” and then follow it with a posting which included a line about how I had finished reading my hard copy and my wife turned it over in order to place a hot cup of coffee on my desk……… It would seem that a thread with that title might cause some undue stress to the sensitive OAC guys so I was deemed responsible for shutting down the ACPA forum. (It has started up again and is much kinder now). I know that Thread Titles can be misleading or perhaps are only posted as such to grab the readers attention, but in this world of sound bites everyone is used to that. Smilies don’t give a poster the licence to make outright offensive statements and then attempt to blunt their point with a caricature in hopes of deflecting any stinging rebuttal………. but you have been around long enough to know that ….so I can only assume that I touched a nerve and you think that my feelings about the issue, based on the photo I posted, (passed to me by another), as well as the Thread Title, and one line posting, was my stance concerning the yae or nay of drug testing for welfare recipients. So there you have it…my small dissertation ….. and you still don’t know, and could probably care less about my position on the subject posting …..but felt I had to let you know how I feel about how this medium can be “iffy” for anyone to form an opinion about anyone, or any subject, based on a simple posting.. Have a nice week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 What choice does the guy relying on welfare have? Starve? Pete Weeelllllll,,,,,,,, If we cut off the free ride, then they would have to get a job, wouldn't they? They take 'cause it's given freely. Make 'em clean a park, take school courses, or anything for the free ride. That's why I have TANSTAAFL as my byline. Google it..... Iceman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fido Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Google it..... Iceman http://www.tanstaafl-cable.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted January 29, 2007 Author Share Posted January 29, 2007 http://www.tanstaafl-cable.com/ Even at a commercial company !!! Also................ I see that in the interest of improving the use of the English language "they" ,(who ever "they" are), want to use TINSTAAFL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conehead Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Or; http://www.tanstaafl.net/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoomerPete Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Boomer S’alright Pete. There are an awful lot of people who don’t see the world with my skewed perception and in turn misinterpret what I post as my deep routed feelings about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness wherein I am actually only posting a low key chuckle. Whether you agree with the photo or not…it is an unusual bit of prose and conjures up a lot of funny scenarios. You probably were not in the “loop” when I was censored from the original ACPA forum back in 2001. Seems one can not entitle a thread with “ Mitchnick Award Turned Over” and then follow it with a posting which included a line about how I had finished reading my hard copy and my wife turned it over in order to place a hot cup of coffee on my desk……… It would seem that a thread with that title might cause some undue stress to the sensitive OAC guys so I was deemed responsible for shutting down the ACPA forum. (It has started up again and is much kinder now). I know that Thread Titles can be misleading or perhaps are only posted as such to grab the readers attention, but in this world of sound bites everyone is used to that. Smilies don’t give a poster the licence to make outright offensive statements and then attempt to blunt their point with a caricature in hopes of deflecting any stinging rebuttal………. but you have been around long enough to know that ….so I can only assume that I touched a nerve and you think that my feelings about the issue, based on the photo I posted, (passed to me by another), as well as the Thread Title, and one line posting, was my stance concerning the yae or nay of drug testing for welfare recipients. So there you have it…my small dissertation ….. and you still don’t know, and could probably care less about my position on the subject posting …..but felt I had to let you know how I feel about how this medium can be “iffy” for anyone to form an opinion about anyone, or any subject, based on a simple posting.. Have a nice week. Hi Kip ... Thanks for the insight into your posting logic. Personally, I don't take any issue with your choosing to post the item at all, I just felt that the sentiment expressed by the writer was worthy of comment, hence my first post which only referenced the "good idea" and not who may be for or against it implicitly or otherwise. Anyway, onwards. From the other posts there are certainly some who would support the writer's proposition. Responses such as: If I don't like any of it I have a choice. Find a new job. Hardly, just go to work like the rest of us! If we cut off the free ride, then they would have to get a job, wouldn't they? They take 'cause it's given freely. Make 'em clean a park, take school courses, or anything for the free ride. reveal a depth of ignorance about poverty and what it's really about that many of us share. Get a job! Go to work like the rest of us! Get the lazy oafs off their backsides and we won't have to pay for those "free lunches". If only it was that simple. There are certainly abusers of the system and that percentage is, I'm sure, high enough to be significant. Still, I think the majority of people taking assistance are not there simply because they choose a life of idlness and "free lunches". They are there, in many cases, because things such as mental illness, physical disability or the need to give care to dependents has entered their lives in such a way that it prevents them from holding a decent job or drawing an income. Life for these folks is difficult enough as it is, not the sort of life we would choose for ourselves, and probably not the life they would choose either if they had a choice. Unfortunately, many don't have a choice, and suggesting that we add the shame, if you will, of a mandatory search for drug use without cause that would otherwise be illegal is just heaping another indignity onto a good many who already have to deal with more small humiliations in the day than you or I might imagine. To me there's nothing noble in that proposition. It's a small minded idea bred of resentment that targets all who need society's help instead of focussing on those who are abusers of the community's generosity. Surely we can do better than that? Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Pete I don't think anyone begrudges those who REALLY need assistance. Those people in our society need and should be given a hand, sincerely. It is the rest who abuse the system that give it a bad name. The only policy from the Harris Tories in Ontario that I agreed with was the changes to the welfare policy with regards to having a 'Spouse in the House'. All you had to do was drive by a Ontario Housing project in the morning, and you would see the tenants coming down to the street to get into their Lincolns and Caddies to go off to work. It was a major problem with the 'girlfriends' getting an apartment, then the boyfriend would move in and they would live subsidised. The rules before the Spouse in the House stated that if a social worker came to check up on them, they had to give notice. All that did was allow the boyfriend to move his clothes out for the day, a minor inconvenience. Afterward, they could be inspected at anytime with no notice. This was proven effective by the resultant drop in welfare rates. I guess it is human nature to abuse what is provided for those who really need it. It is born out by the a--holes in the following article. http://www.thestar.com/article/175536 We all see people like this, and if there are cutbacks, they don't suffer, the people who really need assistance suffer. Sad Iceman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handyman Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 There are certainly abusers of the system and that percentage is, I'm sure, high enough to be significant. Still, I think the majority of people taking assistance are not there simply because they choose a life of idlness and "free lunches". They are there, in many cases, because things such as mental illness, physical disability or the need to give care to dependents has entered their lives in such a way that it prevents them from holding a decent job or drawing an income. Life for these folks is difficult enough as it is, not the sort of life we would choose for ourselves, and probably not the life they would choose either if they had a choice. Unfortunately, many don't have a choice, and suggesting that we add the shame, if you will, of a mandatory search for drug use without cause that would otherwise be illegal is just heaping another indignity onto a good many who already have to deal with more small humiliations in the day than you or I might imagine. To me there's nothing noble in that proposition. It's a small minded idea bred of resentment that targets all who need society's help instead of focussing on those who are abusers of the community's generosity. Surely we can do better than that? Pete There are enough jobs these days for those capable of working to work. Problem is they don't want to have to put in a good days work only to make 10% more than they already are on assistance. The system should place those capable of working in a job and force them to work. Should they quit or get fired...they can apply for U.I. when they qualify. Maybe you need to come home more often Pete to see this is no longer the 90's...jobs are everywhere! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFL Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 I would not take much interest in this idea if I were paying 16% tax and not observing the abuse in my neighbourhood on an almost daily basis. However, I am paying nearly 50% tax which equates to about $60,000.00 per year. I consider anyone on assistance to be an employee of the taxpayer and as a substantial taxpayer I consider myself as the employer. There is no Santa, it is the taxpayer who is providing the funding. Along with many other employers, I have the right to request employee testing. I am not concerned about recreational smoking on time off but if there is proof of other drugs being used and interfering with someone's ability to work and function positively in society then it is my right to require rehabilitation or to cease support payments. Kip; Some people wear their hats too tight! Boomer; There are also many working people in the transportantion/finance/health care/police/firefighting fields who endure the indignity and humiliation of searches/tests on a very regular basis as part of the "territory" and they do not feel entitled to an exemption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimer V Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Add comdoms to the list,even tho its not a drug,the single women out there who get knocked up just to have kids and end up on welfare costs us all a pretty penny Some how they end up with better living conditions then the poor stiff who works for 7 bucks an hour.Not fair either,but its Canada Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Add comdoms to the list,even tho its not a drug,the single women out there who get knocked up just to have kids and end up on welfare costs us all a pretty penny Some how they end up with better living conditions then the poor stiff who works for 7 bucks an hour.Not fair either,but its Canada Of course you are ignoring that those single women are quite likely getting stiffed by those same poor stiffs who work for $7.00 an hour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handyman Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Of course you are ignoring that those single women are quite likely getting by those same poor stiffs . stiffed Good pun! who work for $7.00 an hour Want more, head west! Timmy's paying $16/hr in Calgary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Yeah, but who can afford to live there on that wage. Have you looked at the cost of rent in YYC lately? They're quickly chasing Hong Kong type numbers (okay, a bit of an exageration, but you get the point). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handyman Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Yeah, but who can afford to live there on that wage. Have you looked at the cost of rent in YYC lately? They're quickly chasing Hong Kong type numbers (okay, a bit of an exageration, but you get the point). Not so fast Sherlock! I just did a quick search for Calgary and on one site only, found a couple of 1 bed apartments for $600 and several for under $1000! The really nice stuff is very expensive but I thought we were talking about the poor living on Welfare? What is wrong with making $2500 per month working at Timmy's and paying $800-900 per month in rent? Are you saying an individual would be better off living in Government housing with a $600 welfare cheque? Just checked 24-7 apartments and I found 94 apartments for $1,000 per month or less. Many of them were 2 beds so bring a friend and reduce your rent! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoomerPete Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Well I guess it's time to throw out the BS flag on this one. I would not take much interest in this idea if I were paying 16% tax and not observing the abuse in my neighbourhood on an almost daily basis. However, I am paying nearly 50% tax which equates to about $60,000.00 per year. Where exactly do you imagine you live? Sweden? From your past posts it seems to be BC, which coincidentally is where I live too. That being the case (or is it Alberta, in which case you'd be paying less) your numbers are way out of proportion. You may want to refer to Taxtips.ca ( http://www.taxtips.ca/bctaxcalc.htm ), because if you are paying anything close to 50% in income tax you've hired the worst accountant in the province. To get to the actual numbers, if $60,000 is the amount in personal income tax you paid last year, your gross income assuming absolutely no deductions was a minimum of $169,377 and your average tax rate (combined federal, provincial and CPP) was 33.87%. If your actual income was $125,000 (you said $60,000 was "nearly 50%") then your taxes were only $40,607 and your average tax rate was 30.37%. So, in reality your actual tax rate is as close or closer to the 16% rate you said would leave you unconcerned about social assistance as the near 50% rate which you claim as justification for your position. I consider anyone on assistance to be an employee of the taxpayer and as a substantial taxpayer I consider myself as the employer. There is no Santa, it is the taxpayer who is providing the funding. Well, you can consider yourself their employer, Santa Claus or Mary Queen of Scots if you like but that doesn't make it so, legally, ethically or morally. But, why not take a quick look at exactly how many of your tax dollars are being spent on your "employees". It's probably a lot fewer than you imagine. If you take a moment to review the BC Provincial Budget ( http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2006/est/Estimates_06a.pdf ) which includes most of the income assistance programs we consider "welfare" you'll find that the 2006 revised estimate for the 3 relevant programs (Temporary, Disability and Supplementary Assistance) is $1,252,434,000. A lot of money to be sure, but in fact it represents just 3.54% of the province's annual expenditure of $35,364,000,000. You'd probably be further surprised to find that over 50% of that money pays for Disability assistance which goes to people who are physically or mentally incapable of holding a job, a position you may find yourself in some day. So, anyway, just how much did you crack out of your wallet last year then? We could play games with splitting federal versus provincial taxes and allowing for the 50% federal grant to provinces but let's keep it simple and hold to 3.54% of your income tax or at most $2,124.00. That comes down to 1.25% of your income, a good deal less than a pack a day smoker spends on cigarettes and that's assuming one has an income of $170,000 or so which would put you within the top 5% of income earners in the province. It's not an inconsequential amount to be sure, but it's hardly the big spending generosity that grants one the "right" to call oneself the recipient's "employer" and demand that the said recipients dance to whatever jig you care to call. In fact, 1.25% is pretty small price to pay to aid the welfare of our society as a whole. Most faiths expect a much greater percentage of one's income than that as one's morally responsible contribution to the community's welfare. Kip; Some people wear their hats too tight! Well, better one's hat than ones heart! Boomer; There are also many working people in the transportantion/finance/health care/police/firefighting fields who endure the indignity and humiliation of searches/tests on a very regular basis as part of the "territory" and they do not feel entitled to an exemption. Actually, no they don't. As I suspected, random drug testing is illegal in Canada as per judgements by both the Ontario and Canadian Human Rights Commissions. Random Alcohol testing is permitted, but only for employees in "safety-sensitive" positions. I refer you to: Random Workplace Drug Testing Struck Down By Canadian Human Rights Commission July 10, 2002 - Ottawa, ON, Canada Ottawa, Ontario: Random and pre-employment drug testing of public employees is a human rights violation and not allowed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, the federal Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) announced this week. Their decision strikes down suspicionless drug testing policies for federally regulated workers, such as bank employees and airline pilots. "Positive drug tests simply confirm an individual's previous exposure to drugs, not whether the person is capable of performing the essential requirements of their job," the CHRC stated in a press release. The Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination based upon disability or perceived disability, and drug and alcohol dependency are considered disabilities under the law. Policies that result in an employee's automatic loss of employment, reassignment, or that impose "impose inflexible reinstatement conditions without regard for personal circumstances" are also likely in violation of the law, the Commission found. Post-accident testing, workplace drug testing for "reasonable" cause, and random alcohol testing for safety-sensitive employees are generally acceptable under the law, the Commission said. So, ultimately what it comes down to is the idea that anyone who has the misfortune to need social assistance be required to submit to a form of personal search that has been clearly defined as illegal under Canadian law and which could not ever conceivably be proposed to any other segment of society which collects any form of government benefit. In other words one law for the poor and a different one for the rest of us. How benevolent. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handyman Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Well I guess it's time to throw out the BS flag on this one. Where exactly do you imagine you live? Sweden? From your past posts it seems to be BC, which coincidentally is where I live too. That being the case (or is it Alberta, in which case you'd be paying less) your numbers are way out of proportion. You may want to refer to Taxtips.ca ( http://www.taxtips.ca/bctaxcalc.htm ), because if you are paying anything close to 50% in income tax you've hired the worst accountant in the province. To get to the actual numbers, if $60,000 is the amount in personal income tax you paid last year, your gross income assuming absolutely no deductions was a minimum of $169,377 and your average tax rate (combined federal, provincial and CPP) was 33.87%. If your actual income was $125,000 (you said $60,000 was "nearly 50%") then your taxes were only $40,607 and your average tax rate was 30.37%. Have to agree with you on this one! Would have responded earlier but that would have burned the chops. I suspect most people making 100K+ can get their taxes down well under 30% with common deductions like RRSP's, donations etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planett Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 I think the concept of "marginal tax rates" has confused the issue in the same way as "windchill" exaggerates the ambient temp, but it makes a good story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.