Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

4 Bumps

How much more would you agree to pay in taxes

to pay to have all public assistance recipients drug tested? Since people keep asking, and seem to think some magic money fairy plucks the cash from their backside to pay for it, and that's obviously now how it works. Would you rather it be an increase in sales tax or straight from your income taxes?

Answer Question

Asked by NotPanicking at 11:08 AM on Apr. 20, 2011 in Politics & Current Events

Level 51 (421,174 Credits)
Answers (24)
  • I wouldn't, I think that it's poor shaming and not necessary.

    Answer by Anonymous at 11:09 AM on Apr. 20, 2011

  • I wouldn't, I think that it's poor shaming and not necessary.

    Yeah, but no matter how many times you tell people that, they ignore it because it makes them feel better to feel superior. Pointing out that it will actually cost them money, on the other hand, tends to sink through even the thickest of skulls.

    Comment by NotPanicking (original poster) at 11:12 AM on Apr. 20, 2011

  • I have a brother in law who was on public assistance for years. He should have had his kids taken away a long time ago. He is a crack head and all kinds of other drugs. There is no way he would have ever passed his drug test. I know there are others out there like him. MANY others. I think that savings would pay for drug testing. Now we are still paying him and one of his kids was killed in a car accident (Daddy told his boys don't wear seatbelts) and the other is in jail for molesting my daughter. (He had done this before but no one bothered to tell us and he never got help for it because he was 10 when he did it the first time)

    So yes I would be willing to pay more in taxes to pay for drug testing and get these kids out of homes they don't need to be in.

    Answer by Shaken1976 at 11:13 AM on Apr. 20, 2011

  • I wouldnt want to pay a dime for something I dont agree with. I think as I have before they should offer job training or retraining. Once it is completed if there is a drug test and they fail then that ends the assistance. It should be part of the agreement. You get job retraining but if you do anything to mess it up (like a dirty drug test) then you dont get assistance.

    Answer by gemgem at 11:13 AM on Apr. 20, 2011

  • I wouldn't pay anymore at all. Heck, 40% of our pay already goes to taxes. If the govt. would use the resources in place to crack down on fraudulent welfare recipients and used the money saved from those resources then that could pay for drug testing...or we can just borrow a couple million more from China. ;)

    Answer by wendydays at 11:13 AM on Apr. 20, 2011

  • Start getting the people who don't pay taxes and must be on government assistance to start paying!

    The ride can't be free for ever!

    Answer by gammie at 11:14 AM on Apr. 20, 2011

  • I think that savings would pay for drug testing.

    You're wrong. The vast majority of assistance recipients are elderly, disabled or terminally ill, or children. The very small portion of recipients who don't fall in those groups are not all drug users, so it's a fraction of a fraction of a group who would ever ping a test in the first place. Of those, you're only going to catch the ones too stupid to know how to fake the test and pass it anyway. You'd be paying to test 28 million people multiple times per year, and of those, MAYBE a million or so might test positive, and of those, a lot are going to be those elderly, disabled and terminally ill who are prescribed opiates for pain. So back to the real question - which kind of tax do you want, because that is the ONLY way you'd have the money. 95% of the people on assistance would still be on it, but you'd be paying to test them all.

    Comment by NotPanicking (original poster) at 11:18 AM on Apr. 20, 2011

  • Just wondering what your experience is with all of this? My best friend is a social worker and the amount of people she has on drugs is astounding. She said it would reduce her case load by about 40% if she lost all the druggies. Not to mention....that the cycle could be broken for the kids.

    Answer by Shaken1976 at 11:21 AM on Apr. 20, 2011

  • My best friend is a social worker and the amount of people she has on drugs is astounding.

    Your best friend is talking out her ass. Unless she's suggesting that 40% of the elderly receiving housing assistance and medicare in her district are also drug addicts? That's part of the problem here - everyone likes to pretend the group of people "on assistance" is nothing but crack heads and teen mothers with a half dozen baby daddies. Welcome to reality, where the majority of people on assistance never see a "social worker".

    Comment by NotPanicking (original poster) at 11:24 AM on Apr. 20, 2011

  • I wouldn't. I don't agree with humiliating anyone for having the "audacity" to ask for help. I would wonder what would happen to those people that tested positive and got kicked off public assistance. Wouldn't they be living on the street? Wouldn't crime rates go up because so many more would be arrested for premises trespassing (since they've got to sleep somewhere)... clogging up our jails and court systems? I've worked in the court system, and taking away public assistance, even to drug addicts, is a horrible result for the public and for the bottom line. I've seen this happen particularly to the mentally ill, who self-medicate with illegal drugs, get throwin into the street after losing their jobs, commit crimes they had no idea they were committing, get thrown into jail where the public pays for housing, room and board anyway.

    At least with PA, they have a chance of getting back on their feet.

    Answer by Busimommi at 12:23 PM on Apr. 20, 2011

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.