Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst
1
2
3
LastLast
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Epiphanes View Post
    I really cannot fathom why you would want to dignify your responses with a cause such as "freedom", but I'll take the bait long enough to school you. Do you not obey traffic laws every day? You do? Well, here's the deal. Take a traffic light for instance. Why not just use a stop sign when there are laws in place to govern proper order of turning or moving at a 4-way intersection? A traffic light is nothing more than a quality assurance check, much like a drug urinalysis.
    School me? You're feisty. And you're equating the trivial task of stopping at a traffic light to avoid a fine, with a piss test to get unemployment that I'm filing for because I just lost my job? Really. I'm not schooled, I'm actually embarrassed for you. Hint - I already paid for that unemployment insurance. So did my employer.
    If you wanted to school me, you could've said that not taking drugs would be an equatable quality assurance measure.

    Quote Originally Posted by Epiphanes View Post
    Again, dignifying your responses with redundancy. Let me help you out. 100 people apply for ESC benefits and are paid out $100 a week. After the first urinalysis, 15% (15 people, hurr) are found to be using illegal drugs. The average cost for one drug test is $75. Unemployment benefits run on average around 18 months. The state has in fact saved $5,400 PER PERSON over the course of 18 months by drug screening. And believe me, I feel that anything lower than 15% being positive for illegal drugs is being VERY generous.
    What if that percentage was 2%? Would your feelings change? Because that's the percentage of actual welfare(TARP/EBT) recipients that failed a drug test that the Florida governor passed last year.

  2. #22
    Stood in the Fire
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Wilmington, NC
    Posts
    359
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    Interesting. If you had to take a piss test to get your paycheck, would you be upset? This is a similar situation.

    I guess I'm just incredulous about it because I've had to take a piss test once in my life for a job, which included minimum wage jobs in fast-food as a kid. It was invasive, IMO, but at the time had no choice as pickings were slim(late 2008 during the big meltdown). I would outright refuse any position offered that required a drug test to be employed after that. Not because I use drugs, because it comes with an assumption before I ever step foot into the workplace.
    I've taken, off the top of my head, around 20+ urinalysis tests in the last 6 years while in the military. I don't find it invasive at all. You've been referring to taxpayers money this, taxpayer money that; well, you pay for them too. Would you rather have meth heads and pot smokers on the firing line? No, right? I'd rather not have the same group of people spending legitimate funds that could go elsewhere.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Epiphanes View Post
    And that's exactly why I said anything lower than 15% was being generous. People always have and always will cheat the system. Those people are why this legislation should be passed.
    The legislation isn't going to catch anyone and it is going to cost money on top of what then is paid out to these people. Seems like a waste to me.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    Interesting. If you had to take a piss test to get your paycheck, would you be upset? This is a similar situation.

    I guess I'm just incredulous about it because I've had to take a piss test once in my life for a job, which included minimum wage jobs in fast-food as a kid. It was invasive, IMO, but at the time had no choice as pickings were slim(late 2008 during the big meltdown). I would outright refuse any position offered that required a drug test to be employed after that. Not because I use drugs, because it comes with an assumption before I ever step foot into the workplace.
    Dude, that isn't even remotely the same. I would be picking up my paycheck for services rendered, even if they decided to give me a random drug test for my job and I failed it, they would STILL have to give me my paycheck.

    What you are describing isn't the same thing at all.

  5. #25
    In regards to the payroll tax, the issue comes down to how each party wants to make up for the loss of revenue. Democrats want to raise taxes on the wealthy (which Republicans will not agree to do, and the Democrats know it), while Republicans still want to reform entitlements.

    In a recent proposal Republicans agreed to let the tax break go unpaid for if construction would continue on an oil pipeline that goes from Canada into the United States. However, President Obama has said that he will veto any payroll tax extension that includes a provision regarding the oil line due to environmental concerns that have been raised about it's construction.

    Basically, it's a political game of chicken both sides, with both of them hoping the other side will take the blame if neither backs down in time and payroll taxes go up. If the Republicans cave, they won't be blamed for the payroll tax but they will get lynched for betraying the Republican tax ideology. If Democrats cave, they won't get blamed but they will have a million groups hounding them for allowing entitlement changes, or environmentalists hounding them over the oil pipeline.

    What confuses me is why the Democrats want to pay for a tax break with more taxes (and don't give me that "fair share" crap, the tax system is already progressive with the rich paying the highest rates, and if you really want to get into "fair share" let's discuss the nearly 50% of Americans that haven't contributed a cent after tax returns), and why the Republicans want the oil line so badly..... but the fact that neither side will give in to the demands of the other doesn't surprise me in the least. This is not the simple matter the media is portraying it to be; the fundamentals of both parties are on the line.

  6. #26
    Pandaren Monk Slummish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,780
    Quote Originally Posted by orissa View Post
    So I as a taxpayer should be supporting your drug habit?
    You must be unfamiliar with the system. Workers pay into an unemployment insurance benefit program every month from salary. This money is then invested and put to work earning interest. When a worker becomes unemployed for any reason that is deemed to be no fault of their own and that worker has paid into the system for more than a set period of time, monies are paid to him for a federally-legislated period of time. Additionally, employers must pay into this system as well.

    Although monitored and regulated by the IRS, this program is separate and apart from what you would consider to be a taxpayer responsibility. The monies being paid out here belong to the worker, his employer and investment tools used to grow those funds.

    You, as a general taxpayer, have nothing to do with it...

  7. #27
    Stood in the Fire
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Wilmington, NC
    Posts
    359
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    School me? You're feisty. And you're equating the non-trivial task of stopping at a traffic light to avoid a fine, with a piss test to get unemployment that I'm filing for because I just lost my job? Really. I'm not schooled, I'm actually embarrassed for you. Hint - I already paid for that unemployment insurance. So did my employer.
    If you wanted to school me, you could've said that not taking drugs would be an equatable quality assurance measure.

    What if that percentage was 2%? Would your feelings change? Because that's the percentage of actual welfare(TARP/EBT) recipients that failed a drug test that the Florida governor passed last year.
    The money you paid out is no longer your money. Period. You are entitled to use a socially-contributed program; nothing more, nothing less. 2% of what? 100? 1000? 10000? You need to do some math. I'm not going to work for you. Oh, wait...

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Fugus View Post
    Dude, that isn't even remotely the same. I would be picking up my paycheck for services rendered, even if they decided to give me a random drug test for my job and I failed it, they would STILL have to give me my paycheck.

    What you are describing isn't the same thing at all.
    My taxes that I paid while working, that fund unemployment insurance, isn't services rendered? See what I'm getting at?

  9. #29
    Stood in the Fire
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Wilmington, NC
    Posts
    359
    Quote Originally Posted by Slummish View Post
    You must be unfamiliar with the system. Workers pay into an unemployment insurance benefit program every month from salary. This money is then invested and put to work earning interest. When a worker becomes unemployed for any reason that is deemed to be no fault of their own and that worker has paid into the system for more than a set period of time, monies are paid to him for a federally-legislated period of time. Additionally, employers must pay into this system as well.

    Although monitored and regulated by the IRS, this program is separate and apart from what you would consider to be a taxpayer responsibility. The monies being paid out here belong to the worker, his employer and investment tools used to grow those funds.

    You, as a general taxpayer, have nothing to do with it...
    You're wrong. Although certain aspects of the program vary from state to state, such as employer to employee contribution goes (Florida employee's pay zero into ESC benefits, whereas employers pay everything through a TAX managed by the DOR), it's still funded by taxation.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Darnash View Post
    In regards to the payroll tax, the issue comes down to how each party wants to make up for the loss of revenue. Democrats want to raise taxes on the wealthy (which Republicans will not agree to do, and the Democrats know it), while Republicans still want to reform entitlements.

    In a recent proposal Republicans agreed to let the tax break go unpaid for if construction would continue on an oil pipeline that goes from Canada into the United States. However, President Obama has said that he will veto any payroll tax extension that includes a provision regarding the oil line due to environmental concerns that have been raised about it's construction.

    Basically, it's a political game of chicken both sides, with both of them hoping the other side will take the blame if neither backs down in time and payroll taxes go up. If the Republicans cave, they won't be blamed for the payroll tax but they will get lynched for betraying the Republican tax ideology. If Democrats cave, they won't get blamed but they will have a million groups hounding them for allowing entitlement changes, or environmentalists hounding them over the oil pipeline.

    What confuses me is why the Democrats want to pay for a tax break with more taxes (and don't give me that "fair share" crap, the tax system is already progressive with the rich paying the highest rates, and if you really want to get into "fair share" let's discuss the nearly 50% of Americans that haven't contributed a cent after tax returns), and why the Republicans want the oil line so badly..... but the fact that neither side will give in to the demands of the other doesn't surprise me in the least. This is not the simple matter the media is portraying it to be; the fundamentals of both parties are on the line.
    Please don't bandy about the 50% made-up number that includes people too young to work, people on disability, and people that do not have jobs or make too little income to be taxed.

    Anyone that signs a pledge to never raise taxes should be tried as a traitor. Not that I mind if you run on that platform and actually do it, but to sign some 'agreement' taking away options as an elected representative is moronic. If you don't want to raise taxes, vote against it all you want. Bah.

    It bothers me that the republicans are willing to LET IT GO UNFUNDED (like the bush tax cuts and 2 wars, but both parties were ok with that) as long as they get their Drill, Baby Drill to continue.

    ---------- Post added 2011-12-09 at 01:03 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Epiphanes View Post
    You're wrong. Although certain aspects of the program vary from state to state, such as employer to employee contribution goes (Florida employee's pay zero into ESC benefits, whereas employers pay everything through a TAX managed by the DOR), it's still funded by taxation.
    Can my taxes (or any personal taxes in North Carolina) be used to give money to you under this program?

  11. #31
    Stood in the Fire
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Wilmington, NC
    Posts
    359
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    My taxes that I paid while working, that fund unemployment insurance, isn't services rendered? See what I'm getting at?
    You aren't servicing anything. You're being taxed. Period. You are contributing to a social program. Once that money is docked from your paycheck, it is no longer yours, you are no longer accountable for it, and you no longer have direct control over it in any way, shape, or form.

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by orissa View Post
    So I as a taxpayer should be supporting your drug habit?
    What about the unemployed who still drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes that would pass these drug tests? Do you support them just because their drug of choice is legal?
    I sold out 4 years ago, when I sold to Major League Gaming. And I think you're a troll.
    - Boub

  13. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    My taxes that I paid while working, that fund unemployment insurance, isn't services rendered? See what I'm getting at?
    Not all of it is yours, you only paid in part of it and it was meant for supplimental income to help you till you get back on your feet, it isn't meant to go get an eight-ball or a dime bag. Sorry man, I wish I could keep going more with this, but I can't. 1am here and I am going to bed.

    I have already explained it as best I can in my previous posts. Best of luck

  14. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Epiphanes View Post
    The money you paid out is no longer your money. Period. You are entitled to use a socially-contributed program; nothing more, nothing less. 2% of what? 100? 1000? 10000? You need to do some math. I'm not going to work for you. Oh, wait...
    Ohh, nice dig, assuming I'm unemployed. I'm not. With the exception of being laid off for about 4 months, I've been employed since I was 15(22 years of working).

    I can't find any up-to-date information on the results, but the first 1000-1500 came out as 2%.
    http://www.theroot.com/buzz/98-welfa...pass-drug-test

    Can we tone down the snarks please? They're getting boring. We can agree to disagree, I'm perfectly acceptable to that.

  15. #35
    Stood in the Fire
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Wilmington, NC
    Posts
    359
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    Can my taxes (or any personal taxes in North Carolina) be used to give money to you under this program?
    In the state of North Carolina, we pay into FICA, Federal, and State as far as taxes go. The first tax (FICA) is for Medicare/caid and social security. As far as I know, NC is an employer-only contributor state, much like Florida. Employer's pay through tax collection. ESC benefits are State-by-State. A person or employer in the state of NC is not accountable for paying a person's ESC benefits in another state.

    ---------- Post added 2011-12-09 at 01:11 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    Ohh, nice dig, assuming I'm unemployed. I'm not. With the exception of being laid off for about 4 months, I've been employed since I was 15(22 years of working).

    I can't find any up-to-date information on the results, but the first 1000-1500 came out as 2%.
    http://www.theroot.com/buzz/98-welfa...pass-drug-test

    Can we tone down the snarks please? They're getting boring. We can agree to disagree, I'm perfectly acceptable to that.
    Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.

    That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month’s worth of rejected applicants.

    Net savings to the state: $3,400 to $5,000 annually on one month’s worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800 to $60,000 for a program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.

    Directly from the article. Told you to do the math; they even did it for you.

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Darnash View Post
    What confuses me is why the Democrats want to pay for a tax break with more taxes (and don't give me that "fair share" crap, the tax system is already progressive with the rich paying the highest rates, and if you really want to get into "fair share" let's discuss the nearly 50% of Americans that haven't contributed a cent after tax returns), and why the Republicans want the oil line so badly..... but the fact that neither side will give in to the demands of the other doesn't surprise me in the least. This is not the simple matter the media is portraying it to be; the fundamentals of both parties are on the line.
    Yes, that confuses me too with the Democrats. To be fair though, Republicans sure are hell-bent on this cut being paid for. I wish they would've done the same with the Bush/Obama tax cuts.

    Not gonna touch that 50% thing, it's a trap that would send this thread into a liberal vs conservative discussion, which I'd rather avoid.

  17. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Epiphanes View Post
    In the state of North Carolina, we pay into FICA, Federal, and State as far as taxes go. The first tax (FICA) is for Medicare/caid and social security. As far as I know, NC is an employer-only contributor state, much like Florida. Employer's pay through tax collection. ESC benefits are State-by-State. A person or employer in the state of NC is not accountable for paying a person's ESC benefits in another state.[COLOR="red"]
    So, every ounce of your Unemployment Insurance (ESC as it is in NC) is payed by the Employer when they terminate an employee through layoffs, yet you want to add more bloat to the system by forcing drug tests (which the employer apparently did not) and more financial overhead? Why? Why does it need to be more complicated?

  18. #38
    Stood in the Fire
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Wilmington, NC
    Posts
    359
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    So, every ounce of your Unemployment Insurance (ESC as it is in NC) is payed by the Employer when they terminate an employee through layoffs, yet you want to add more bloat to the system by forcing drug tests (which the employer apparently did not) and more financial overhead? Why? Why does it need to be more complicated?
    Re-read your article about "2%" or my above post; I paraphrased it for you.

  19. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Epiphanes View Post
    Re-read your article about "2%" or my above post; I paraphrased it for you.
    I'm pretty sure I have yet to link an article in this thread.

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Epiphanes View Post
    Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.

    That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month’s worth of rejected applicants.

    Net savings to the state: $3,400 to $5,000 annually on one month’s worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800 to $60,000 for a program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.

    Directly from the article. Told you to do the math; they even did it for you.
    You probably should've read the whole article, what I linked was a snapshot.

    The two next paragraphs:
    Actual savings will vary, however, since not all of the applicants denied benefits might have actually collected them for the full year. Under certain circumstances, applicants who failed their drug test can reapply for benefits after six months.

    The as-yet uncalculated cost of staff hours and other resources that DCF has had to spend on implementing the program may wipe out most or all of the apparent savings, said Derek Newton, spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida. The program will grow costlier yet, he said, if it draws a legal challenge.
    You still feel like snarking? Cause seriously, it doesn't augment your argument, at all.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •