Yellow Bullet Forums banner
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,543 Posts
And it will end up costing taxpayers 1.2 Million every year in the end for all the tests. This was NOT in this article but here are the money #'s

The House approved the bill despite a legislative staff financial analysis that showed the state would spend $2.7 million on the program to possibly the save the state $1.5 million in denied benefits. That means the state would lose $1.2 million next year if the bill were to become law.
Those numbers dont seem to make sense to me.

Even if it cost a grand per drug test....thats 1200 test that they can afford to give at 1.2 mil.

Thats a LOT for a drug test

some info I found says the average welfare payment for a family of four is 346 a month. Combined with 668 in food stamps, about 1,014 a month is available.

So....out of the 1200 people tested.....say 300 people cant pass. 25%. I dunno maybe thats a high estimate. Then again...maybe its low.

How long do they lose benefits for? Say....they arent eligible for 6 months.

300 people at 1014 a month times 6 months makes for a savings of 1,825,200.

Now you spent 1.2 mil to save that 1.8 so its roughly a 600k real world savings.

Keep in mind though....I used a super high estimate for the cost of the drug test ;)

in reality the test is going to be cheaper by a large amount. So even if less fail.....if they collect anywhere near the average per month...it will be a big savings.

And just to expound further... What if a percentage of those folks losing their assistance actually go out and get work!

Add just a percentage of those people back in to the work force and have them pay taxes, instead of receive taxes......and indirectly.....state revenue grows even further.

And you and I know.....PLENTY of those people are capable of work, and some of them will start to work if they absolutely have to.

Unless the analyst anticipates that very very few people will fail(or get caught)....then I wonder how they came up with the figure that they lose welfare.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,543 Posts
You people have it all wrong, Why punish the "bottom feeders" in society.

One of or govt "members of parliament" suggested that we drug test everybody that had influence in our day to day lives.

Starting with govt members, police, etc and work your way down.

over there you should drug test capitol hill ,these fuckers are making all the decisions that affect your lives
Because the reality of the situation is.....little bit of drinking or a little smoke doesnt render most folks incapable of performing their job.....whatever it may be.

I dont mean being drunk or high on the job so lets not mix that up.

I mean...if I knock back a few and have a smoke on a friday night....it doesnt have shit to do with the job I do next tuesday afternoon.

And no Im not into drugs. Dont have a feeling about them one way or another. Im just smart enough to know that it aint really a big deal. If you are mixed up doing stronger stuff that actually is bad enough to have a long term affect on your "performance" then you arent going to be in one of those positions anyhow....

As far as drugs go though, they ARE in fact illegal, and they ARE in fact a LUXURY more than anything.

I dont care if you do drugs. But if I HAVE to give you money, you had damn well better spend it on something you NEED as opposed to just illegal, fun stuff.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,543 Posts
You people have it all wrong, Why punish the "bottom feeders" in society.

One of or govt "members of parliament" suggested that we drug test everybody that had influence in our day to day lives.

Starting with govt members, police, etc and work your way down.

over there you should drug test capitol hill ,these fuckers are making all the decisions that affect your lives
And furthermore.....do you people have jobs over there?

Many of us already get drug tested in order to be allowed to work. This whole argument about the "wealthy people wouldnt stand for this" is a giant steaming load of crap.

many many many of us that made the decision to work for a living and make something of ourselves either currently are, or previously have been subject to drug testing to get or retain employment.

kinda hard to say we wouldnt stand for it when most of us already go thru it or have gone thru it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,543 Posts
"a legislative staff financial analysis" They ran and put out the #'s not me. They are paid to get these #'s close.
Im not tryin to shoot the messenger and bust your chops. Im just saying its hard to see where they came up with the numbers.

The variable is people that will fail the drug test. Since we dont know yet...we can only assume. At this point in time, I can make it look like a fuck ton of money will be saved if I choose to "estimate" that damn near all welfare recipients will fail.

I "estimate" haha that my numbers were reasonable enough, and even with an over inflated cost of testing....it still works out in the good.

hell even if it cost the full 2.7 million.......they have to be spending WAAAY more than this on welfare. Something else I read says 13k people are on welfare in indiana. gotta be in the tens of millions spent. wouldnt take many fails to save over 2.7
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,543 Posts

wow. I guess the next question would be.....why in the holey hell does it cost over 1800 in administrative fees and over 630 dollars in system fees to simply drug test one damn person.

The second they are done passing this law....they need to go on and figure out how in the fuck it costs them 2400+ per person just to simply list somebody as a failure and quit mailing them checks.

There is clearly a lot of waste in whatever department handles this.

I will bill them 2400 a month to keep track of all 13000 welfare recipients test results in a database I could have up and running in an hour or two.

or they could spend 2400 per person on a regular basis...

and I thought I was being outlandish suggesting that it would cost a grand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,543 Posts
But it could save millions if it were to be put into law. As was mentioned the test themselves would become cheaper being they would be done in such volume. On a positive note if this were to pass the drug abusing leeches would move to an easier state to bleed dry. The more states that do this will create a need for the rest to fall in line just to avoid the cost of welfare refugees moving to their state. I really like this idea and can't understand how someone can justify not testing. If your employer can test you why not welfare, You have the choice not to test for either but you either wont get a job or any free money.

Its a solid no brainer.

The thing that still blows my mind is according to that chart it is estimated to cost 280 per test per person just for the drug test. I could understand that.

But then it cost over 2400 dollars to document a failure?

A 5 year old cell phone has enough memory to store the test date and test result of 13000 records. An expectation of 2400 per person in administrative fees just to store a record is a bigger problem than welfare. This is mind blowing.

When you extrapolate it to the level of our federal government...its no wonder we are in the debt we are in. They are really creative at finding ways to make things cost 2400 times what they actually should cost
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top